March 18 (UPI) — An appeals court has denied a Trump administration request to block a district court’s ruling that directs it to rehire tens of thousands of federal workers it fired as part of its efforts to streamline and reshape the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its 2-1 ruling Monday, denying a Trump administration emergency motion to stay Thursday’s order by U.S. District Judge William Alsup.
“Given that the district court found that the employees were wrongfully terminated and ordered an immediate return to the status quo ante, an administrative stay of the district court’s order would not preserve the status quo. It would do just the opposite — it would disrupt the status quo and turn it on its head,” the panel wrote in its ruling obtained by UPI.
The ruling does not weigh in on the merits of the case.
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House on Jan. 20, his administration has sought to mass fire tens of thousands of federal workers, attracting several lawsuits from employee unions and Democratic attorneys general.
On Thursday, Alsup, a President Bill Clinton appointee, ordered the Trump administration to reinstate illegally fired probationary workers from the departments of Treasury, Energy, Defense, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs.
U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget Bade, a Trump appointee, was the sole dissenting vote in the Monday ruling. The other two judges were Democratic presidential appointees Barry Silverman and Ana de Alba.
She argued in favor of the stay, saying the district court’s preliminary injunction imposes “a substantial administrative burden” requiring the six agencies to offer reinstatement to the terminated employees.
If the courts later rule to vacate the preliminary injunction, then the rehirings would be for naught, she said.
“A temporary stay would at least mitigate this potential whiplash effect,” she said.
The plaintiffs, she continued, argued government services were thrown into chaos by the terminations but offered no proof that reinstatement would alleviate these harms.
“Instead, the administrative undertaking of immediately reinstating potentially thousands of employees would likely draw (already depleted) agency resources away from their designated service functions,” she said.
“In sum, a limited administrative stay is necessary to preserve the status quo as it existed prior to the district court’s preliminary injunction.”
The plaintiffs in the case have until Tuesday to respond to the Trump administration’s emergency motion, with the government having the option to reply by Thursday.