It's been quite a busy day for the courts on Monday, with multiple notable decisions being handed down in relation to President Donald Trump and his administration — the bulk of them favoring the administration. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals may not have gone Trump's way, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did with an order finding that a group of states that sued the administration over its attempts to reduce the federal workforce do not have proper standing and instructing the district court to dismiss the suit.
READ MORE: Denied: Court Rules Against Virginia Public Schools Defying Trump-Era Bathroom Policies
New: 2nd Circuit Affirms $83.3M Judgment Against Trump in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Suit
The case is styled State of Maryland v. United States Department of Agriculture, and was brought by 19 states plus the District of Columbia in Maryland District Court, seeking an injunction of the administration's attempts at large-scale reductions in force, pursuant to Executive Order 14210: "Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization Initiative." In March, Maryland District Judge James Bredar (an Obama appointee) granted plaintiffs a temporary restraining order, which the administration appealed and the 4th Circuit declined to stay. Then, in April, Bredar granted a preliminary injunction. The administration again appealed, sought a stay at the 4th Circuit, obtained a stay at the 4th Circuit, and now has secured a dismissal.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another win for Trump. Fourth Circuit dismisses left States' lawsuit challenging firings. 1/ pic.twitter.com/yMX9OF9Eag
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 8, 2025
Monday's decision was 2-1, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson (a Reagan appointee) penning the majority decision and joined by Judge Allison Jones Rushing (a Trump appointee). Judge DeAndrea Benjamin (a Biden appointee) authored a dissent.
Wilkinson laid out the crux of the decision thusly:
Shortly after the 2025 Presidential Inauguration, the federal government began to lay off thousands of probationary employees across multiple federal agencies. Many people regard these sudden terminations as a harsh and dislocating action that works significant hardship on many civil servants—individuals who committed their considerable energy and talents to serving the nation. Others regard these terminations as part of a long-overdue effort to downsize the federal government and trim unnecessary expenses. Complaints about the bloat of the federal bureaucracy and concerns about preserving the public fisc have long been facets of our political discourse.
This clash of views must ultimately be resolved by the voters. For our part, we deal with a narrow constitutional question: whether a group of states has Article III standing to challenge the composition of the federal workforce. Standing doctrine requires us to ensure that the proper party is seeking the proper relief. Here that is not the case. Although it was the employees who suffered the brunt of the harm, they are nowhere to be found in this case. We conclude that the plaintiff States lacked standing here and return this case to the district court with directions to dismiss it.
There's something important to note here regarding Judge Wilkinson: He also penned the (I thought) terribly overwrought decision regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia back in April, and I somewhat raked him over the coals for that one.
Reading his introductory explanation above, one gets the sense he might well land differently were this a case involving some of those directly impacted civil servants — and frankly, on the issue of standing, he may well be right in that case. But, as he notes, "Although it was the employees who suffered the brunt of the harm, they are nowhere to be found in this case."
So, to be clear, this decision isn't an assessment of the propriety/legality of the administration's reduction-in-force efforts. Rather, it's an assessment of whether a group of states are the proper parties to challenge such efforts. And Judges Wilkinson and Jones Rushing (rightly) recognize that they are not. Wilkinson's concluding paragraph sums it up well:
We acknowledge that the abrupt and indiscriminate dismissal of the probationary employees here exacted all-too-human costs upon those affected. But this real impact on the employees, who are not parties here, cannot govern our review. Instead, we are required to answer a narrower question concerning the plaintiffs in this case: whether a group of states may invoke the jurisdiction of a federal district court to oversee the federal government’s compliance with federal employment laws governing the termination of federal employees. The relief requested here is wholly out of proportion to the injury alleged. To hold that standing exists would upset, indeed revolutionize, the balance inherent in dual sovereignty, one in which reciprocal respect must be accorded by one sovereign to the paramount interests of another. We must hold, as the Supreme Court’s decisions plainly dictate, that these plaintiffs lacked standing to seek the relief that they did. We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand with directions to the district court to dismiss the action.
In other words, regardless of where his sympathies may lie, Judge Wilkinson remains cognizant of the fact that the court is bound by Supreme Court precedent and that the role of the court is to decide the issue presented to it, not attempt to set policy. It appears that some in the federal judiciary are receiving the message the Supreme Court is sending. Good.
Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member