The White House vowed on Friday to challenge federal court rulings that blocked the Trump administration’s mass firings of probationary government employees, calling the judicial orders unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt strongly criticized the rulings, which required agencies to reinstate thousands of employees dismissed last month.
“Fighting back by appealing. Fighting back by using the full weight of the White House’s counsel’s office,” Leavitt declared during a press briefing. She dismissed the decisions as attempts to undermine President Trump’s authority to reshape the federal workforce.
Federal Judges Halt Mass Firings
The controversy stems from two separate rulings issued Thursday by federal judges in Maryland and Northern California.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that employees fired on February 13-14 from the Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury departments must be reinstated. His decision was followed by a broader injunction from U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland, who temporarily reinstated probationary employees at 18 federal agencies.
Bredar, an Obama appointee, rebuked the administration’s justification for the terminations, stating that officials had provided no individualized assessments of employees’ performance before their dismissal.
“In this case, the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advance notice,” Bredar wrote. “It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for ‘performance’ or other individualized reasons. On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively.”
White House Calls Rulings Unconstitutional
Leavitt responded forcefully, accusing the judges of engaging in judicial activism and interfering with executive authority.
“And as the executive of the executive branch, the president has the ability to hire or fire, and you have these lower-level judges who are trying to block this president’s agenda. It’s very clear,” she said.
The case is part of a broader legal battle over the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the federal workforce, particularly through the removal of probationary employees—who are typically in their first or second year of government service and have fewer job protections than permanent staff.
Leavitt also pointed to what she described as a pattern of legal obstruction against the administration.
“In February alone, there were 15 injunctions imposed on the administration’s actions,” she said, contrasting that with the 14 total injunctions issued against the Biden administration over three years, citing data from the Harvard Law Review.
Ongoing Legal Battles
The administration is expected to file appeals in both cases, setting the stage for further legal showdowns. The Department of Justice has not yet released its official response, but legal experts anticipate the case may reach higher courts, possibly even the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, federal employees affected by the rulings await clarity on their employment status. While the court orders mandate reinstatement, the administration’s legal challenge could delay or complicate their return to work.
Leavitt made clear that the White House sees the rulings as part of a broader effort to undermine Trump’s policies.
“It’s very clear that there are judicial activists throughout our judicial branch who are trying to block this president’s executive authority. We are going to fight back,” she said.
