A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that mass firings of probationary federal employees were likely unlawful, dealing what appears to be a temporary rhetorical setback, though not a practical one, to the Trump administration’s efforts to reform the federal workforce.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, puts a temporary hold on the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) involvement in dismissing probationary employees across various federal agencies. The lawsuit, filed by five labor unions and nonprofit organizations, challenged the legality of the firings, arguing that OPM overstepped its authority.

The Debate Over Federal Workforce Reform

The Trump administration has made reducing the size of the federal workforce a priority, largely through the efforts of the newly-established Department of Government Efficiency, pointing to concerns over bureaucratic inefficiency and excessive spending. 

READ MORE: DOGE Will Be Trump's Centerpiece During His Second Term

Probationary employees—typically those who have been on the job for less than a year—are subject to evaluation before being granted full civil service protections.

According to the administration, these dismissals were part of an effort to streamline government operations and ensure that only the most effective employees remain. However, Judge Alsup pushed back, stating that OPM does not have the legal authority to direct agencies to carry out mass firings.

"OPM does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe," Alsup asserted in court, "to hire or fire any employees but its own."

Government attorneys disputed the unions’ claims, arguing that OPM did not order agencies to fire employees but rather asked agencies to review their probationary staff to determine who was fit for continued employment. 

What This Means Moving Forward

The ruling does not automatically reinstate fired employees, nor does it block future firings altogether. Instead, it sends a warning to federal agencies about how they interpret OPM’s directives. Alsup appears to have been concerned with a report of a phone call in which OPM told other agencies to make the cuts.

“The agencies could thumb their noses at OPM if they wanted to if it’s guidance, but if it’s an order, or cast as an order, the agencies may think they have to comply,” he said.

The case is just one of several in the ongoing battle over federal employment policy and fiscal policy, with the Trump administration pushing for greater accountability and efficiency, while labor unions and some federal employees argue that such moves unfairly target workers.

The Supreme Court is already getting involved, recently putting a hold on an order forcing the Trump administration to pay out foreign aid money to the tune of $2 billion. That order appeared to be so egregious that Chief Justice John Roberts felt compelled to step up.

READ MORE: SCOTUS Halts Court Order Forcing Trump Admin to Pay $2 Billion in Foreign Aid

With an evidentiary hearing set for March 13, this case could set the stage for further legal battles over the scope of executive authority in managing the federal workforce. 

For now, agencies will have to navigate these employment changes carefully, as the courts weigh the legal boundaries of federal hiring and firing authority.