In a Baltimore courtroom pulsing with political consequence, a federal judge is openly questioning whether his ruling to reinstate nearly 25,000 federal workers—axed in a sweeping move by the Trump administration—can stretch across all 50 states.
The judge, James Bredar, made headlines earlier this month when he blocked the controversial firings of probationary federal employees. But on Wednesday, he pumped the brakes, mulling whether his authority should stop at the borders of Washington, D.C. and the 19 states that actually brought the legal challenge. “This court has great reluctance to issue a national injunction,” he said pointedly. “That doesn’t mean the court won’t—but you’ll need to prove it’s necessary.”
This hesitation comes as courts across the country wrestle with the growing use—and abuse—of nationwide injunctions. The legal community is increasingly divided on whether a single judge should wield such sweeping power, especially when it reins in presidential action.
The case centers on a mass firing spree targeting probationary employees—those who haven’t yet crossed the one-year threshold in their roles. The Trump administration called it a cost-cutting, efficiency-driven measure. Critics saw it as a decapitation strike on the civil service.
Bredar’s temporary restraining order was supposed to expire this week, but he extended it to April 1 to allow more arguments on just how far his ruling should go. He also ordered both sides to submit briefs on the appropriate scope of the injunction by Thursday morning.
Virginia Williamson, speaking for Maryland and the coalition of states suing the federal government, pushed back hard. Limiting the ruling to just the plaintiff states, she argued, would leave others—and their residents—scrambling to cope with economic fallout. “These are people who live in one state and work in another,” she told the court. “The ripple effects don’t obey state lines.”
The Department of Justice had a different tune. Their attorney, Eric Hamilton, claimed the terminations weren’t unlawful at all. But even if Bredar disagrees, Hamilton insisted, any ruling should be strictly limited to those directly involved in the suit.
So far, Bredar has stood firm in his belief that the terminations violated federal regulations requiring agencies to notify state and local governments 60 days before major layoffs. “I’m not going to casually conclude that Congress set up a legal framework to shield states from harm—and then just shrug if the federal government decides to ignore it,” he said.
Behind the courtroom debate is a broader political chess game. The layoffs—engineered as a first strike by Trump and adviser Elon Musk in their effort to dramatically shrink the federal government—are just the beginning. Some agencies dropped a few hundred workers. Others, thousands. In court filings, many agencies now claim they’ve offered reemployment to most of the fired staff, with many choosing to return, some placed on paid leave, and a few moving on.
But the legal fight isn’t isolated to Baltimore. Just hours before Bredar’s March 13 ruling, another judge in San Francisco ordered the reinstatement of probationary workers at six agencies on separate legal grounds. That case, too, is now on appeal—with the Trump administration urging the Supreme Court to step in and freeze the ruling.
This legal tug-of-war now has the potential to reshape the contours of executive power, judicial reach, and federal employment law. But for the thousands of workers caught in the crossfire—who were fired, rehired, and now hang in bureaucratic limbo—it’s less about theory and more about survival.
Case in Focus: Maryland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 25-cv-748
Agencies Involved: Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury, among others.
Next Deadline: Thursday morning briefs on the scope of judicial authority.
