Jurisdictional Dispute at the Ninth Circuit
The Department of Justice appeared before a Ninth Circuit panel on Friday to challenge a district court order requiring federal agencies to amend the personnel files of thousands of terminated probationary employees. Joshua Koppel, representing the government, argued that the district court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to intervene in these specific labor matters. He asserted that the Civil Service Reform Act functions as the exclusive mechanism for handling such disputes. Under this framework, challenges must proceed through the Federal Labor Relations Authority or the Merit Systems Protection Board rather than through federal district courts.
Koppel emphasized that probationary employees occupy a distinct legal category under the 1978 act. He argued they do not possess the same appeal rights afforded to permanent federal staff. The dispute stems from actions initiated in February 2025, when a coalition of unions and the state of Washington challenged directives from the Office of Personnel Management. These directives instructed federal agencies to terminate probationary workers under the stated reason of poor performance. Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup previously blocked these mass firings, ruling the office lacked the legal authority to command agencies to execute such widespread personnel actions.
Judicial Reach and the Administrative Procedure Act
The legal battle reached the Supreme Court, which granted an emergency stay regarding the potential reinstatement of those workers. Despite that development, Judge Alsup ruled in April that the affected employees maintained standing to sue. By September 2026, he granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. He determined that the Office of Personnel Management violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing orders beyond its statutory authority. While Alsup stopped short of ordering the reinstatement of the fired workers, citing the time elapsed since the initial terminations, he did mandate that agencies correct the personnel files of those impacted.
These corrections involve issuing formal notices to the former employees stating their terminations were not related to individual performance or conduct. Koppel told the appellate judges that this requirement creates an ongoing injury for federal agencies. He argued the court's mandate forces these agencies to provide specific, government-sanctioned narratives to former staff, which also limits the information agencies can share if prospective employers conduct background checks. This confrontation highlights a core disagreement over the reach of federal courts when the Office of Personnel Management acts outside its typical advisory role.
The Scope of Statutory Review
During the hearing, U.S. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen queried whether the government’s position suggests that unions are entirely barred from seeking declaratory or injunctive relief in these instances. Koppel maintained that the Civil Service Reform Act was specifically designed to exclude such judicial intervention. He argued that the statutory scheme intentionally limits the avenues for challenge, effectively precluding the type of litigation brought by the unions. This argument rests on the premise that Congress purposefully restricted access to courts for these personnel disputes.
Danielle Leonard, representing the union plaintiffs, countered that nothing in the text or structure of the law implies an intent to insulate the Office of Personnel Management from judicial oversight. She argued that the Administrative Procedure Act provides a clear pathway to contest unlawful agency actions, even when those actions impact probationary staff. Leonard underscored that these employees lack other administrative channels to challenge these specific directives. The lack of a forum for probationary workers is a central point of contention for the plaintiffs, who argue that the government’s actions should not be shielded from review simply because of the employment status of those affected.
Future Implications for Federal Personnel Policy
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke questioned whether the distinction between probationary and non-probationary employees is being ignored. He suggested that the law typically grants greater protections to non-probationary staff and warned that granting judicial review to probationary workers might invert established legal hierarchies. Leonard maintained the focus should remain on the legality of the agency's actions rather than expanding protections for a specific class of worker. The panel, which included Judge Daniel A. Bress, now weighs whether the lower court’s orders regarding file corrections stand or if the agency actions are shielded from district court oversight. A ruling from the Ninth Circuit will clarify the extent to which federal agencies can operate without risk of judicial interference when navigating mass personnel changes.