← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

AFGE v. OPM (Probationary employees 2)

No. 25-2637 Circuit · Active Active
Court
9th Cir.
ca9
Filed
Apr 24, 2025
Filed (CL)
Apr 24, 2025
CL Status
active

Case Overview

The government appealed Judge Alsup's preliminary injunction requiring 6 executive agencies to reinstate illegally fired probationary employees.


The Application

History

Judge Alsup found that the probationary employees likely had protected interests in continued employment and that six agencies failed to provide constitutionally required notice-and-opportunity-to-respond procedures before terminating them. The balance of equities favored maintaining the status quo through reinstatement pending resolution of the underlying claims.

The Conclusion

The district court granted the preliminary injunction requiring the six agencies to reinstate the terminated probationary employees. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the case remains active on appeal.

Federal Court TMR-70acf195 Firing of Federal Workers Appeal of 3:25-cv-01780 May 18, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

The government appealed Judge Alsup's preliminary injunction requiring 6 executive agencies to reinstate illegally fired probationary employees.

Overview

The government appealed Judge Alsup's order granting summary judgement for the plaintiffs which declared the OPM did not have the authority to direct agencies to terminate probationary employees and enjoined the OPM director from directing federal agencies to fire federal employees.

Issue

Whether federal agencies violated probationary employees' procedural due process rights by terminating them without notice or an opportunity to respond, and whether a preliminary injunction requiring reinstatement is warranted pending appeal.

Rule

Federal employees with property interests in employment receive procedural due process protections under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, requiring notice of charges and an opportunity to respond before termination. A preliminary injunction requires showing likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities favoring the plaintiff, and that the injunction serves the public interest.

Analysis

Judge Alsup found that the probationary employees likely had protected interests in continued employment and that six agencies failed to provide constitutionally required notice-and-opportunity-to-respond procedures before terminating them. The balance of equities favored maintaining the status quo through reinstatement pending resolution of the underlying claims.

Conclusion

The district court granted the preliminary injunction requiring the six agencies to reinstate the terminated probationary employees. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the case remains active on appeal.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support