Trump administration asks Supreme Court to halt judge’s order to rehire probationary federal workers

srnnews.com ^ | Mar 24, 2025

[V_TWIN]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to halt a ruling ordering the rehiring of thousands of federal workers let go in mass firings aimed at dramatically downsizing the federal government.

The emergency appeal argues that the judge can’t force the executive branch to rehire more than 16,000 probationary employees. The California-based judge found the firings didn’t follow federal law, and he ordered reinstatement offers be sent as a lawsuit plays out.

The appeal also calls on the conservative-majority court to rein in the growing number of federal judges who have slowed President Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda.

“Only this Court can end the interbranch power grab,” the appeal stated.

[butterdezillion]

And they said that Donald Trump - the one whose election was potentially stolen - had no standing to sue.

The Obama eligibility lawsuits told us everything - and the fact that the judges’ claims were all different when it was people wanting to get Trump off the ballot.

Obama’s eligibility issue was nobody’s business, because
1, nobody had peculiar harm (as long as we’re all screwed equally it is nobody’s business)

2. no harm was done until the election was certified, and once the election was certified it was too late.

3. the courts say the issue is a political matter (Congress could refuse to certify the electoral vote) but Congress said it was a judicial matter since they are only allowed to count votes)

Between those 3 legal ways to keep anybody from being allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances, we the people have no means of accountability for our govt - not even through the states, as you note.

Yet we just had a judge in CA say that nobody in the whole fedgov can be fired because the unions say that if they were, that MIGHT make their job harder. Where is the need to show that harm has actually happened? Where is the need to show that you have suffered an injury peculiar to you and not one everybody suffers? Where is the need to say that this is a matter for the judiciary rather than through administration?

All of the judicial garbage they’ve been using on we the people is thrown out the window when it’s their pet group coming to them.

How can this be “equal protection” and “due process”? The whole thing is a sick, sick joke.

[butterdezillion]

That’s because the people issuing the security clearances were the worst among them.

Do them first.

[V_TWIN]

“Normally, probational employees can be fired for any reason.”

That’s what probationary meant when I was on probation with the DoD.....and I saw it happen a few times.....being on probation is not a time for jackassery.....whether it’s private OR public employment.

[asinclair]

(I know I'm not following "The FR Way" in my first paragraph. Blame it on the coffee.)

I read the story, and all the comments to this point in this posting, and I find a glaring omission: the judge did not quote from the US Code (USC) in his findings. Instead, he quoted from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). "Law" not passed by Congress and signed by the President. The CFR codifies the opinion of unelected bureaucrats about the procedures used to administrate what it believes the rules should be.

Now, some of the CFR rules can be traced back to the USC statutes, while others cannot. What a judge is supposed to do is, in a ruling, trace back to USC statutes, or prior Court rulings that also traced back to USC statutes.

I'm not pleased with the quality of lawyering in the current Department of Justice. Bondi and Co missed AOC practicing law without a license, for example, when she conducted a webinar for illegal immigrants on how to evade capture and deportation. (Granted, Bondi was blinded by the cop crying "obstruction!" when in fact AOC didn't obstruct justice, because obstruction requires a physical act.) Frankly, the Democrats did it better.