A legal battle over the mass ousting of federal workers is heating up as unions and public interest groups accuse six U.S. government agencies of deliberately defying a federal judge’s order to reinstate over 17,000 employees—by putting them back on the books, but not back to work.
The case, playing out in a San Francisco courtroom, centers on the Trump administration’s controversial push to purge recently hired probationary federal workers across key departments. While a judge had ordered their reinstatement earlier this month, the plaintiffs say agencies are skirting the ruling by parking the affected workers on paid administrative leave—effectively sidelining them.
That move, they argue, undermines the very essence of the March 13 order issued by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who made clear that “paid leave” doesn’t cut it. In a sharp rebuke, Alsup stated that placing workers on leave doesn’t restore the “services the preliminary injunction intends to restore.”
The plaintiffs, which include labor unions, nonprofits, and the state of Washington, are now asking the court to compel six departments—Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs—to stop playing shell games and get the workers back to their desks. They’re also urging the judge to consider daily financial penalties until compliance is achieved.
In some cases, agencies have claimed that reinstating the workers is futile, as many are still on track to be let go once the appeals process is over. Others argue that paid leave is merely a stopgap before full reinstatement—at some undefined point in the future. According to filings, none of the agencies have told employees that their terminations were ruled unlawful, another court-ordered requirement.
Adding to the legal storm, the Trump administration this week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block Judge Alsup’s order while it challenges the ruling. That appeal is running parallel to another federal case out of Baltimore, where a separate judge ordered the reinstatement of nearly 25,000 workers across 18 agencies in a similar challenge brought by Washington, D.C., and 19 other states.
A federal appeals court in Virginia has already refused to pause that Baltimore ruling. The judge there has hinted at narrowing the scope to only those states involved in the suit, but for now, both orders remain standing.
At the core of the San Francisco case is the claim that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management—acting without the authority to do so—instigated the mass firings, and that the agencies followed suit improperly. Judge Alsup agreed, setting off the current standoff.
Now, as the legal wrangling escalates and thousands of workers remain in limbo, the question looms: are agencies following the law, or simply finding creative ways to avoid it?
The case is American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, No. 25-cv-1780, in the Northern District of California.
