Trump Admin Takes Fight Over Fired Probationary Workers to the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump has taken his battle over federal workforce cuts to the Supreme Court, challenging a lower court’s order to rehire 16,000 fired government workers as his administration faces multiple legal roadblocks to his agenda.

Key Takeaways

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to block a lower court order requiring the reinstatement of over 16,000 probationary federal workers terminated earlier this year.
US District Judge William Alsup ruled the mass terminations likely violated federal law, ordering six agencies to reinstate the workers immediately.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argues the order violates separation of powers principles and creates an administrative burden for the federal government.
The administration has faced more than 40 injunctions from district courts since Trump’s inauguration, particularly affecting immigration and government spending initiatives.
Justice Elena Kagan will handle the emergency application, which represents the third time the administration has sought such relief from the Supreme Court.

Administration Challenges “Judicial Overreach”

The Trump administration has formally requested that the Supreme Court intervene to halt a lower court’s mandate requiring the rehiring of thousands of federal employees. The firings, which targeted more than 24,000 probationary workers across multiple agencies, were a key component of President Donald Trump’s broader initiative to reduce the size and cost of the federal government. After an appeals court declined to block the reinstatement order, the Justice Department escalated the matter to the nation’s highest court through an emergency application.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has forcefully argued that the district court’s order represents an unprecedented intrusion into executive authority. The administration’s legal team contends that the ruling will cause immediate and significant disruption to government operations by forcing agencies to rapidly reintegrate thousands of employees who were lawfully terminated during their probationary periods. This dispute highlights the ongoing tension between the administration’s policy goals and the judiciary’s oversight role.

Trump goes to top court to resist rehiring fired federal workers https://t.co/JuqyS9UjWM

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) March 25, 2025

Legal Basis and Judicial Response

The contested firings began shortly after Trump’s inauguration as part of his agenda to streamline government operations. US District Judge William Alsup ordered six federal agencies to reinstate the terminated employees, ruling their dismissals likely violated federal law.

The Justice Department’s petition to the Supreme Court emphasizes that district courts have issued over 40 injunctions against Executive Branch actions since Trump’s inauguration. Harris argues these rulings collectively represent a pattern of judicial overreach that undermines the constitutional separation of powers. The administration’s legal strategy increasingly focuses on challenging what it characterizes as inappropriate nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges.

Broader Pattern of Legal Challenges

This case represents just one front in a multi-faceted legal battle facing the Trump administration. The emergency application to the Supreme Court marks the third time since taking office that President Trump has sought expedited intervention from the high court to limit the scope of lower court injunctions. Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees emergency appeals from California, will initially handle the administration’s request, which is expected to receive an expedited review and determination.

The administration’s legal difficulties extend beyond workforce issues. In a separate but related development, a Maryland federal judge has restricted senior officials from sharing sensitive documents with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been spearheading cost-cutting efforts. This limitation stems from privacy concerns raised in ongoing litigation, adding another layer of complexity to the administration’s government reform initiatives as courts continue to scrutinize the legal boundaries of executive action.