Subsequent Trump and Court Action(s)

• February 19, 2025

  2025.03.11 Second Amended Complaint - AFGE v. OPM

  On February 19, 2025, the American Federation of Government Employees and three other unions filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for allegedly ordering federal agencies across the country, including DHS, to "terminate tens of thousands of federal [probationary] employees by sending them standardized notions of termination . . . that falsely state that the terminations are for performance reasons" on February 13 (the day before DHS reportedly fired nearly 50 USCIS probationary employees). The plaintiffs argue that the OPM's order unconstitutionally preempts legislative power and violates the APA and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). On February 23, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the version included in this entry) that mentions terminations at DHS and USCIS and includes additional claims under the APA. On March 11, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (the version included in this entry) that names DHS and Secretary Noem as defendants for purposes of complete relief. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Off. of Personnel Management (OPM) , 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.).

  **Litigation entries are limited to initial complaints and major substantive rulings. For pleadings and additional information, use name and docket number to search Civil Rights Clearinghouse and CourtListener or visit Just Security Litigation Tracker**

  View Document
• February 28, 2025

  2025.02.28 Memorandum Opinion and Order Amending TRO - AFGE v. OPM

  On February 27, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the bench that OPM lacked authority to issue directives for other agencies to fire probationary employees and that the OPM memo serving as the basis for federal agency firings was “ultra vires,” or outside of OPM’s legal authority.

  Due to jurisdictional limitations, Judge Alsup found that he could not directly order the agencies to cease the firings. Additionally, he limited his order to only employees fired from certain federal agencies. For agencies not covered by the order, including USCIS, Judge Alsup reportedly stated, "I am going to count on the government to do the right thing, and to go a little bit further than I have ordered, and to let some of these agencies know what I have ruled. . ."

  This memorandum opinion and order issued the following day corrects two small and unrelated errors in the original TRO. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Off. of Personnel Management (OPM) , 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.).

  *See litigation note above*

  View Document
• March 6, 2025

  2025.03.06 Complaint - Maryland v. USDA

  Nineteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against 17 federal agencies and their agency heads to challenge the mass firing of federal probationary employees (including the 50 USCIS employees). The lawsuit alleges that the mass firings, done without notice, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the defendants' lawful authority. Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 1:25-cv-00748 (D. Md.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• March 13, 2025

  2025.03.13 Temporary Restraining Order - Maryland v. USDA

  The district court issued a temporary restraining order against all federal agencies named except for the Department of Defense, National Archives and Records Administration, and Office of Personnel Management, finding that the states showed a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to all agencies except for the three named. The court stayed the terminations of affected probationary employees in the named agencies, ordered the agencies to reinstate all affected probationary employees, and to abstain from conducting future reductions in force except in compliance with notice requirements. Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 1:25-cv-00748 (D. Md.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• March 17, 2025

  2025.03.17 USCIS - Probationary Reinstatements

  Pursuant to the district court’s temporary restraining order in Maryland v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. on March 13, USCIS states that it “has made every effort to contact all impacted individuals who were terminated by USCIS on February 14, 2025.” USCIS asks anyone who believes they fall within the court’s order and have not been contacted to reach out. Employees whose terminations fall within the court’s order will be reinstated effective 3/17/25 and placed on administrative leave.

  View Document
• April 1, 2025

  2025.04.01 Preliminary Injunction - Maryland v. USDA

  The district court issued a preliminary injunction against all federal agencies named except the National Archives and Records Administration, finding that the mass terminations were likely unlawful and irreparably harmed the plaintiff states. The injunction stays the mass terminations of probationary employees who either live or work in the plaintiff states. It also bars the agencies from terminating en masse any federal probationary employee who lives or works in a plaintiff state, except pursuant to the reduction in force statute and regulations. Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 1:25-cv-00748 (D. Md.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• April 8, 2025

  2025.04.08 Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal of Preliminary Injunction - OPM, et al. v. AFGE, et al.

  The Supreme Court stayed Judge Alsup's preliminary injunction based on a lack of standing for the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs. The preliminary injunction is stayed pending the case's appeal to the Ninth Circuit and disposition of any timely sought writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. If certiorari is denied, the stay will terminate automatically. If granted, then the stay will terminate upon issuance of the Court's judgement.

  *See litigation note above*

  View Document
• April 9, 2025

  2025.04.09 Stay Pending Appeal - Maryland v. USDA

  The Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. It found that the government is likely to succeed in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, and that the government is unlikely to recover the funds disbursed to reinstated probationary employees. Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 25-1248 (4th Cir.).

  **Litigation entries are limited to initial complaints and major substantive rulings. For pleadings and additional information, use name and docket number to search Civil Rights Clearinghouse and CourtListener or visit Just Security Litigation Tracker**

  View Document