Washington – A federal judge on Thursday allowed President Trump’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce to proceed while legal proceedings are ongoing, rejecting a request from a group of labour unions to temporarily halt his firing of federal employees and other actions targeting government workers.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., stated in a 16-page decision that he had to deny the unions’ request for relief because he lacked jurisdiction over the claims.
The judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, stated that the unions must file their legal challenges under the scheme established by Congress in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, which governs labour relations in the federal workforce.
The claims, he stated, must be filed with the Federal Labour Relations Authority.
Nonetheless, Cooper wrote that the first month of Mr. Trump’s presidency “has been defined by an onslaught of executive actions that have caused, some say by design, disruption and even chaos in widespread quarters of American society.” He also noted that federal judges’ mixed decisions to halt some of Mr. Trump’s actions while allowing others to proceed while cases are pending are not unexpected.
“Federal district judges are duty-bound to decide legal issues based on even-handed application of law and precedent — no matter the identity of the litigants or, regrettably at times, the consequences of their rulings for average people,” said Cooper.
The five unions that represent federal workers had asked Cooper to issue an order that temporarily prevented the termination of probationary employees, implemented large-scale force reductions throughout the government, and renewed the president’s “deferred resignation program.”
That program allowed federal employees to resign while retaining full pay and benefits until September 30. The deadline for employees to accept the offer was February 12, and the White House reported that approximately 75,000 federal workers agreed to the program.
The unions argued that the president’s three initiatives—firing probationary employees, a deferred resignation program, and planned large-scale force reductions—violate the separation of powers and federal law.
In court filings, union lawyers warned that the president’s plans to reduce the size of the government endanger more than 500,000 employees.
They said approximately 220,000 workers are on probation, and another 345,000 were deemed non-essential during the previous major government shutdown during Mr. Trump’s first term. An executive order signed by the president directed agency heads to prepare for “large-scale reductions in force.” Nonessential workers were targeted for firing.
More than 12,000 federal employees have already been or are expected to be fired, including over 6,000 at the Internal Revenue Service who are expected to be let go by the end of the month, according to a source familiar with the agency’s plans.
“A mass reduction of approximately 25% of the federal civilian workforce is unprecedented,” the unions stated in a filing.
“It raises the novel question of whether the Executive Branch may lawfully hobble the federal agencies that Congress creates, to which Congress assigns statutory missions, and which Congress funds so that they may accomplish those legislative directives.”
The Justice Department had urged the court to deny the unions’ request, arguing that they had failed to demonstrate that they would be harmed without relief.
“The president is charged with directing the Executive Branch workforce, and he has determined that the politically accountable heads of his agencies should take steps to streamline and modernise the workforce through measures including voluntary deferred resignations, removal of certain probationary employees, and [reductions in force],” the Justice Department’s lawyers wrote in a court filing.
