update - Federal judge bars Trump administration from ending "temporary protected status" for 350,000 Venezuelan nationals
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Court hearing goes 'exceptionally badly' for Trump DOJ as judge loses patience: reporter
Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney on Tuesday brought word that the Trump Department of Justice stumbled badly in trying to justify freezing funds for the United States Agency for International Development.
During a hearing in front of United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amir Ali, DOJ lawyers took heat for refusing to say if the government had taken any steps to comply with Ali's earlier order to unfreeze funding for USAID.
At one point, wrote Cheney, Ali seemed to lose his patience.
"I don’t know why I can’t get a straight answer from you," he said. "Are you aware of an unfreezing of the disbursement of funds for those contracts and agreements that were frozen before Feb. 13?"
The attorney representing the government simply replied that, "I’m not in a position to answer that."
"This continues to be going exceptionally badly for DOJ, which can't seem to give a straight answer to the judge's questions here: 'We’re now 12 days in ... You can’t answer me whether any funds that you kind of acknowledged are covered by the court’s order have been unfrozen?'" Cheney wrote in a follow-up post on BlueSky.
At the end of the hearing, reported Politico's Josh Gerstein, Ali sided with the plaintiffs in the case and said that bills related to USAID that were incurred before February 13 must be paid by midnight on Wednesday.
Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney on Tuesday brought word that the Trump Department of Justice stumbled badly in trying to justify freezing funds for the United States Agency for International Development.
During a hearing in front of United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amir Ali, DOJ lawyers took heat for refusing to say if the government had taken any steps to comply with Ali's earlier order to unfreeze funding for USAID.
At one point, wrote Cheney, Ali seemed to lose his patience.
"I don’t know why I can’t get a straight answer from you," he said. "Are you aware of an unfreezing of the disbursement of funds for those contracts and agreements that were frozen before Feb. 13?"
The attorney representing the government simply replied that, "I’m not in a position to answer that."
"This continues to be going exceptionally badly for DOJ, which can't seem to give a straight answer to the judge's questions here: 'We’re now 12 days in ... You can’t answer me whether any funds that you kind of acknowledged are covered by the court’s order have been unfrozen?'" Cheney wrote in a follow-up post on BlueSky.
At the end of the hearing, reported Politico's Josh Gerstein, Ali sided with the plaintiffs in the case and said that bills related to USAID that were incurred before February 13 must be paid by midnight on Wednesday.
Supreme Court delays deadline for Trump administration to pay $1.9B in foreign aid
Chief Justice John Roberts, in an order Wednesday night, has stayed a lower court order that the administration pay out $1.9 billion by midnight
abcnews.go.com
Is she one of the judges on Hot Bench?
Three weeks ago, the Justice Department was emphatic: Donald Trump may have pardoned Kentuckian Dan Wilson for crimes he committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, but that pardon did not extend to his unrelated conviction for illegally storing firearms at his home.
Then, on Tuesday, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington reversed course, saying it had “received further clarity” about Trump’s true intent, which included pardoning Wilson for the gun case. Prosecutors did not explain how they arrived at this new “clarity.”
The abrupt reversal prompted a federal judge — now weighing Wilson’s last-minute effort to avoid prison for the gun conviction — to demand answers from the Trump administration on Wednesday: Who exactly did Trump mean to pardon when he signed his sweeping clemency order last month, and for what crimes?
During a two-hour hearing in her federal courtroom, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich — a Trump appointee — grilled a Justice Department attorney about the matter and appeared to leave with more questions than answers. And Wilson’s freedom is in the balance: He’s slated to report to prison unless Friedrich agrees to stop the sentence.
At the heart of the controversy is the vague language of Trump’s mass pardons for Jan. 6 rioters. He granted clemency to anyone “convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Jan. 6 defendants have repeatedly argued that the language is so broad it covers other crimes that have nothing to do with Jan. 6 but were discovered during the vast criminal probe stemming from the Capitol attack. But Trump himself did not speak to that issue when he signed the executive proclamation issuing the pardons, and it has left his own administration and the courts struggling to divine what was in his head the moment his pen touched the order on Jan. 20.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell said the department’s understanding of Trump’s pardon had evolved in recent weeks — but she did not say how or why. She said this shift was the reason the Justice Department had moved in recent days to drop a slew of other cases against Jan. 6 defendants who were on the hook for other federal felonies. They included Jeremy Brown, who was serving a seven-year sentence in Florida for possessing grenades and classified information; Elias Costianes, who was serving a two-year sentence for possessing illegal guns and drugs; and Daniel Ball, a repeat offender facing firearms charges in Florida.
The common thread, Blackwell told Friedrich, was that those convictions were the result of FBI searches conducted as part of the Jan. 6 investigation. That makes them “related to” the Capitol riot, under the terms of Trump’s pardon, and those crimes would not have been discovered were it not for the Jan. 6 probe, the prosecutor said.
But when Friedrich pressed, Blackwell acknowledged that there were exceptions to the Justice Department’s new interpretation. For example, she said, a North Carolina man charged with possessing child pornography was not covered. That’s because authorities had suspected the man, David Daniel, of exploiting a minor prior to the Jan. 6 investigation. A Tennessee man convicted of conspiring to kill his Jan. 6 investigators was not intended to be covered either, Blackwell said, because his conspiracy was “a separate plot” devised long after the Capitol attack.
Friedrich pressed further with a hypothetical: If evidence emerged later that connected a Jan. 6 defendant to a murder, would the defendant be pardoned of that crime under DOJ’s interpretation? Blackwell couldn’t answer.
“That’s just extraordinary,” Friedrich said of the potential breadth of Trump’s pardon to offenses unrelated to Jan. 6.
It prompted Friedrich to raise concerns that the interpretation of Trump’s pardon by his administration appeared to be a shifting target that was not apparent in the language of Trump’s proclamation itself.
“It can’t be the case that a pardon can be issued in vague terms and months later, the president can make a determination of what it means,” Friedrich said. “It’s not my job to craft the pardon language.”
Friedrich also seemed to catch an error in the government’s position, noting that authorities had evidence that Brown possessed classified information long before Jan. 6. That fact seems to put Brown in a similar position as Daniel — yet the Justice Department has argued that Brown is covered by the pardon while Daniel is not.
The judge grew increasingly exasperated as she asked the Justice Department to explain “the president’s intent” when he issued the pardon. But Blackwell and Wilson’s attorney, George Pallas, told the judge she had virtually no role in interpreting the pardon at all. The Justice Department, acting on Trump’s behalf, would simply tell her what it means.
But Friedrich said she viewed it as her job to accept only a “reasonable” interpretation of Trump’s pardon, and given the justice Department’s shifting explanations, she had not yet decided whether to grant Wilson a reprieve from his five-year prison sentence. She said the Justice Department could send her clarifying language by 5 p.m. Wednesday before she issued an opinion.
Judge finds mass firings of federal probationary workers were likely unlawful
A federal judge in San Francisco finds the mass firings of probationary employees were likely unlawful.
apnews.com
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday found that the mass firings of probationary employees were likely unlawful, granting some temporary relief to a coalition of labor unions and organizations that has sued to stop the Trump administration’s massive trimming of the federal workforce.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the Office of Personnel Management to inform certain federal agencies that it had no authority to order the firings of probationary employees, including the Department of Defense.
“OPM does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe,” to hire or fire any employees but its own, he said.
Alsup handed down the order on a temporary restraining order sought by labor unions and nonprofits in a lawsuit filed by the coalition filed last week.
The complaint filed by five labor unions and five nonprofit organizations is among multiple lawsuits pushing back on the administration’s efforts to vastly shrink the federal workforce, which Trump has called bloated and sloppy. Thousands of probationary employees have already been fired and his administration is now aiming at career officials with civil service protection.
The plaintiffs say the Office of Personnel Management had no authority to terminate the jobs of probationary workers who generally have less than a year on the job. They also say the firings were predicated on a lie of poor performance by the workers.
Lawyers for the government say the Office of Personnel Management did not direct the firings, but asked agencies to review and determine whether employees on probation were fit for continued employment. They also say that probationary employees are not guaranteed employment and that only the highest performing and mission-critical employees should be hired.
There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers — generally employees who have less than a year on the job — across federal agencies. About 15,000 are employed in California, providing services ranging from fire prevention to veterans’ care, the complaint says.
Unions have recently struck out with two other federal judges in similar lawsuits attempting to stop the Trump administration’s goal of vastly reducing the federal workforce.
Alsup, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, has presided over many high-profile cases and is known for his blunt talk. He oversaw the criminal probation of Pacific Gas & Electric and has called the nation’s largest utility a “ continuing menace to California.”
Last edited:
DOGE suffers biggest loss yet as thousands of probationary USDA employees ordered back to work
The chair of a quiet government agency secured the re-employment of nearly 6,000 fired federal workers for the next month and a half on Wednesday, just a day after her own firing was ruled illegal by a federal judge.
Cathy Harris struck what is likely the biggest blow so far to DOGE’s firing campaign on Wednesday, ruling that 5,600 probationary employees at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were terminated in a move that may have violated federal procedures. Her ruling halts the firings for 45 days, while the Merit Systems Protection Board, which she chairs, reviews the firings.
It’s not a permanent victory for workers hoping to keep their jobs, but one that could become lasting if the Board rules that the firings (which at USDA were predicated on supposed performance issues) were made on dubious grounds.
Meanwhile, the affected employees will remain in their respective positions.
Harris herself issued the ruling only a day after a federal injunction barring her from taking action was lifted on Tuesday. President Donald Trump attempted to fire Harris upon taking office, though her term does not expire until 2028. She sued, and on Tuesday a federal judge ruled that her firing was illegal. The White House is likely to escalate the effort to fire her to a court of appeals.
“Because there is a possibility that additional individuals, not specifically named in the agency’s response, may be affected by these probationary terminations, and given the assertions made in [Office of Special Counsel]’s initial stay request and the deference to which we afford OSC in the context of an initial stay request, I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the agency terminated the aforementioned probationary employees, in violation of [US Code],” reads Harris’s ruling.
The board’s ruling could end up affecting thousands of other workers, depending on how many were targeted with letters that cited poor performance as a supposed reason for termination.
But it won’t stop DOGE and the broader Trump administration from formally reducing the workforces at federal agencies and winding down entire divisions — or even the agencies themselves, which are under the purview of the president.
US special counsel Hampton Dellinger is also fighting in court to keep his job after Trump targeted him for termination. Dellinger has publicly called on agencies to reverse DOGE-ordered mass firings, which he has called illegal.
Harris’s ruling Wednesday came in response to a filing from Dellinger on behalf of “John Doe”, an unidentified Department of Agriculture employee.
“I am calling on all federal agencies to voluntarily and immediately rescind any unlawful terminations of probationary employees,” he has said. “My agency will continue to investigate and take appropriate action on prohibited personnel practices including improper terminations of probationary employees. Voluntarily rescinding these hasty and apparently unlawful personnel actions is the right thing to do and avoids the unnecessary wasting of taxpayer dollars.”
The chair of a quiet government agency secured the re-employment of nearly 6,000 fired federal workers for the next month and a half on Wednesday, just a day after her own firing was ruled illegal by a federal judge.
Cathy Harris struck what is likely the biggest blow so far to DOGE’s firing campaign on Wednesday, ruling that 5,600 probationary employees at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were terminated in a move that may have violated federal procedures. Her ruling halts the firings for 45 days, while the Merit Systems Protection Board, which she chairs, reviews the firings.
It’s not a permanent victory for workers hoping to keep their jobs, but one that could become lasting if the Board rules that the firings (which at USDA were predicated on supposed performance issues) were made on dubious grounds.
Meanwhile, the affected employees will remain in their respective positions.
Harris herself issued the ruling only a day after a federal injunction barring her from taking action was lifted on Tuesday. President Donald Trump attempted to fire Harris upon taking office, though her term does not expire until 2028. She sued, and on Tuesday a federal judge ruled that her firing was illegal. The White House is likely to escalate the effort to fire her to a court of appeals.
“Because there is a possibility that additional individuals, not specifically named in the agency’s response, may be affected by these probationary terminations, and given the assertions made in [Office of Special Counsel]’s initial stay request and the deference to which we afford OSC in the context of an initial stay request, I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the agency terminated the aforementioned probationary employees, in violation of [US Code],” reads Harris’s ruling.
The board’s ruling could end up affecting thousands of other workers, depending on how many were targeted with letters that cited poor performance as a supposed reason for termination.
But it won’t stop DOGE and the broader Trump administration from formally reducing the workforces at federal agencies and winding down entire divisions — or even the agencies themselves, which are under the purview of the president.
US special counsel Hampton Dellinger is also fighting in court to keep his job after Trump targeted him for termination. Dellinger has publicly called on agencies to reverse DOGE-ordered mass firings, which he has called illegal.
Harris’s ruling Wednesday came in response to a filing from Dellinger on behalf of “John Doe”, an unidentified Department of Agriculture employee.
“I am calling on all federal agencies to voluntarily and immediately rescind any unlawful terminations of probationary employees,” he has said. “My agency will continue to investigate and take appropriate action on prohibited personnel practices including improper terminations of probationary employees. Voluntarily rescinding these hasty and apparently unlawful personnel actions is the right thing to do and avoids the unnecessary wasting of taxpayer dollars.”
https://x.com/i/status/1897062106161406379
80% of people caught with Fentanyl at the mexican border are YANKEES!!!
80% of people caught with Fentanyl at the mexican border are YANKEES!!!
20 states sue Trump over mass firings saying Musk’s DOGE skipped required notices
Nearly half of the country’s attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the Department of Government Efficiency’s mass firings of federal workers.
The AGs accuse the administration of terminating tens of thousands of probationary employees without first following federal regulations, including a 60-day advance notice to affected employees and states. The federal government and many states require companies to notify employees ahead of mass layoffs.
“These large-scale, indiscriminate firings are not only subjecting the Plaintiff States and communities across the country to chaos. They are also against the law,” the suit filed Thursday says. “Where an agency fails to provide such notice, the employees ‘may not be released.’”
The administration “has run roughshod over” these requirements in the past month, “harming” both the individuals and the states they live in, the AGs argued.
“As a result, many affected employees and their families are struggling to make ends meet—to pay rent, buy groceries, and care for their loved ones,” the complaint states, adding that states are also impacted. The lack of notice has “impeded” states’ ability to support the terminated workers with resources; states are now facing “increased administrative demands related to adjudicating unemployment claims, decreased tax revenues, and increased demands for social services.”
The states are asking the court to require the administration to halt the reductions in force of probationary employees that they have conducted “unlawfully and without notice,” to reinstate any probationary employees who were terminated as part of mass terminations on or after January 20 — President Donald Trump’s first day in office — and to conduct any future layoffs in accordance with applicable laws.
New York, Maryland, California and Illinois are among the states suing the administration, including the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Defense, and their secretaries.
All of the states that joined the lawsuit are considered Democrat-leaning.
“The Trump administration’s illegal mass firings of federal workers are a slap in the face to those who have spent their careers serving our country,” New York Attorney General James said in a statement Thursday. “Thousands of workers across New York and the nation are now struggling to pay rent, put food on the table, and care for their loved ones. Today, I am joining my fellow attorneys general in defending the rights of workers who serve our communities and stopping the chaos and confusion this unjust policy is causing.”
The firings across the federal workforce have prompted protests. Even Musk has admitted mistakes were made with some of the firings (Getty Images)
DOGE, led by the world’s richest person Elon Musk, has been abruptly and haphazardly laying off workers. In some circumstances, the administration has walked back on its sweeping moves, trying to re-hire critical workers after firing them, including some working to combat bird flu and some working at the National Nuclear Security Administration, prompting calls across party lines for the cost-cutting arm to “slow down.”
After mistakenly axing a U.S. Agency for International Development program aimed at curbing the spread of Ebola, the tech billionaire told Trump’s cabinet: "We will make mistakes. We won't be perfect, but when we make mistakes we'll fix it very quickly. For example, with USAID one of the things we accidentally canceled, very briefly, was Ebola prevention."
This isn’t the first time Musk has gotten into hot water over mass firings with little notice.
The X owner was sued in a class action lawsuit after he failed to provide a 60-day notice before laying off hundreds of employees in 2022.
Nearly half of the country’s attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the Department of Government Efficiency’s mass firings of federal workers.
The AGs accuse the administration of terminating tens of thousands of probationary employees without first following federal regulations, including a 60-day advance notice to affected employees and states. The federal government and many states require companies to notify employees ahead of mass layoffs.
“These large-scale, indiscriminate firings are not only subjecting the Plaintiff States and communities across the country to chaos. They are also against the law,” the suit filed Thursday says. “Where an agency fails to provide such notice, the employees ‘may not be released.’”
The administration “has run roughshod over” these requirements in the past month, “harming” both the individuals and the states they live in, the AGs argued.
“As a result, many affected employees and their families are struggling to make ends meet—to pay rent, buy groceries, and care for their loved ones,” the complaint states, adding that states are also impacted. The lack of notice has “impeded” states’ ability to support the terminated workers with resources; states are now facing “increased administrative demands related to adjudicating unemployment claims, decreased tax revenues, and increased demands for social services.”
The states are asking the court to require the administration to halt the reductions in force of probationary employees that they have conducted “unlawfully and without notice,” to reinstate any probationary employees who were terminated as part of mass terminations on or after January 20 — President Donald Trump’s first day in office — and to conduct any future layoffs in accordance with applicable laws.
New York, Maryland, California and Illinois are among the states suing the administration, including the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Defense, and their secretaries.
All of the states that joined the lawsuit are considered Democrat-leaning.
“The Trump administration’s illegal mass firings of federal workers are a slap in the face to those who have spent their careers serving our country,” New York Attorney General James said in a statement Thursday. “Thousands of workers across New York and the nation are now struggling to pay rent, put food on the table, and care for their loved ones. Today, I am joining my fellow attorneys general in defending the rights of workers who serve our communities and stopping the chaos and confusion this unjust policy is causing.”
The firings across the federal workforce have prompted protests. Even Musk has admitted mistakes were made with some of the firings (Getty Images)
DOGE, led by the world’s richest person Elon Musk, has been abruptly and haphazardly laying off workers. In some circumstances, the administration has walked back on its sweeping moves, trying to re-hire critical workers after firing them, including some working to combat bird flu and some working at the National Nuclear Security Administration, prompting calls across party lines for the cost-cutting arm to “slow down.”
After mistakenly axing a U.S. Agency for International Development program aimed at curbing the spread of Ebola, the tech billionaire told Trump’s cabinet: "We will make mistakes. We won't be perfect, but when we make mistakes we'll fix it very quickly. For example, with USAID one of the things we accidentally canceled, very briefly, was Ebola prevention."
This isn’t the first time Musk has gotten into hot water over mass firings with little notice.
The X owner was sued in a class action lawsuit after he failed to provide a 60-day notice before laying off hundreds of employees in 2022.
BREAKING: Federal judge deals Donald Trump a huge black eye by ruling that he illegally fired the head of the National Labor Relations Board, accusing him of "pushing the bounds of his office," and declaring that he is "not a king."
This is a major setback for the fascist MAGA movement... U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the widely criticized firing of NLRB head Gwynne Wilcox was in fact "an illegal act" and "a blatant violation of the law." In her lawsuit, Wilcox pointed out that federal law clearly stats that NLRB board members can only be terminated for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause." Notice must be given and a hearing held.
"The President’s excuse for his illegal act cannot be sustained," Judge Howell wrote in a fiery 36-page ruling. "The President seems intent on pushing the bounds of his office and exercising his power in a manner violative of clear statutory law to test how much the courts will accept the notion of a presidency that is supreme," she wrote.
"An American President is not a king – not even an ‘elected’ one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances, as are present here," she added.
The judge's order reinstates Kaplan as a board member to the NLRB although it does allow Trump's new chairperson Marvin Kaplan to remain in place. The MAGA Justice Department will appeal the ruling to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
A federal judge has ruled that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is wielding so much power that its records will likely have to be opened to the public under federal law.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said the vast and “unprecedented” authority of DOGE, formally known as the U.S. Digital Service, combined with its “unusual secrecy” warrant the urgent release of its internal documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
“The authority exercised by USDS across the federal government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently made with no congressional input appear to be unprecedented,” Cooper wrote in a 37-page opinion.
It’s the first significant ruling in a growing legal push to pierce DOGE’s secretive veil, a decision that undercuts Musk’s repeated insistence about the operation’s transparency — and the White House’s refrain that Musk is simply a run-of-the-mill presidential adviser with limited decision-making authority. Cooper said this representation is undercut by the weight of evidence that has trickled out in court and in the news.
The judge noted that DOGE’s speed and the fluidity of its leadership appear to be by design. He is ordering “rolling” productions of DOGE records to begin within weeks.
“The rapid pace of [DOGE’s] actions, in turn, requires the quick release of information about its structure and activities,” Cooper wrote. “That is especially so given the secrecy with which DOGE has operated.”
Cooper leaned heavily on news reports suggesting that Musk’s operation had led to the firing of tens of thousands of government employees, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, a government-wide deferred resignation program and widespread access to sensitive government databases for relative outsiders.
However, the judge also noted that the executive order Trump signed creating DOGE, coupled with public statements by the president and Musk, reinforced the notion that the cost-slashing operation was doing much more than simply giving advice.
The Trump administration has housed the DOGE operation within the Executive Office of the President in what appeared to be an attempt to shield it from FOIA. Most divisions within the EOP are exempt from FOIA, but a few deemed to exercise independent authority are subject to the transparency law. The Trump administration has also asserted that Musk himself isn’t part of the DOGE apparatus but is serving as a direct adviser to Trump.
Cooper’s ruling is a win for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued to demand the urgent release of DOGE-related documents. Cooper stopped short of granting the group’s demand that the materials to be made public prior to Congress’ consideration of a spending bill this week that could avoid or precipitate a government shutdown. But he agreed with the need for urgency.
“Congress needs the requested information in a timely fashion to use it effectively. The electorate also requires the expeditious production and publication of this information,” Cooper said. “Voters may seek to influence congressional representatives to take action responsive to USDS at any point along the road. And ‘[t]he dissemination of information’ sought by CREW would contribute ‘to an informed electorate capable of developing knowledgeable opinions and sharing those knowledgeable opinions with their elected leaders.’”
Cooper also offered some criticism of the way the Trump administration litigated the case, noting that its lawyers offered virtually nothing in the way of evidence about DOGE’s operations or management.
“Indeed, the Court wonders whether this decision was strategic,” Cooper said, noting that Trump administration lawyers had taken competing positions — including that DOGE qualifies as an “agency” under some sections of law but not others — “when it suits it.”
“Thus [DOGE] becomes, on defendants’ view, a Goldilocks entity,” Cooper wrote, “not an agency when it is burdensome but an agency when it is convenient.”
US judge temporarily halts Trump plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration's plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training, finding that cuts are already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun sided with the eight states that had requested a temporary restraining order. The states argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from President Donald Trump's administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Trump, a Republican, has said he wants to dismantle the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The plaintiffs argued the federal Education Department abruptly ended two programs — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — without notice in February. They said the two programs provided upwards of $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas, such as math, science and special education. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
President Donald Trump waves to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
Joun, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, found that the cancelations violated administrative law by failing to give a clear explanation and that the states are at risk of lasting harm because they're already having to cancel teacher training programs and lay people off.
“The record shows that if I were to deny the TRO, dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted,” he wrote, using the acronym for temporary restraining order.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell called the order “a victory for our students, teachers and school districts, restoring funds to programs designed to address the ongoing teacher shortage in the Commonwealth, including those serving vulnerable students with special needs.”
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)© The Associated Press
On Monday, Laura Faer, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for California, told Joun that a temporary restraining order was urgently needed because the freeze on grants was already leading to staff being laid off and program being halted.
“The situation is dire right now,” she told the court. “As we speak, our programs across the state are facing the possibility of closure, termination.”
California is joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Adelaide Pagano, representing Massachusetts, argued the Education Department lacked the authority to cancel the grants and its move was not in accordance with the law. The form letters to grantees, she said, failed to provide a clear and reasonable explanation for the cancellations and wrongly changed the criteria in the middle of the grant process, something they could consider for future funding but not money already allocated.
Michael Fitzgerald, representing the government, insisted the Education Department was well within its authority to cancel the grants over the programs suspected of violating federal anti-discrimination laws and no longer aligning with the department's priorities. He also argued there was no need for immediate relief, since grantees could recoup their frozen funds if they prevail in their lawsuit.
Late Tuesday, the Trump administration appealed the order to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed.
Michael Casey, The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration's plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training, finding that cuts are already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun sided with the eight states that had requested a temporary restraining order. The states argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from President Donald Trump's administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Trump, a Republican, has said he wants to dismantle the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The plaintiffs argued the federal Education Department abruptly ended two programs — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — without notice in February. They said the two programs provided upwards of $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas, such as math, science and special education. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
President Donald Trump waves to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
Joun, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, found that the cancelations violated administrative law by failing to give a clear explanation and that the states are at risk of lasting harm because they're already having to cancel teacher training programs and lay people off.
“The record shows that if I were to deny the TRO, dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted,” he wrote, using the acronym for temporary restraining order.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell called the order “a victory for our students, teachers and school districts, restoring funds to programs designed to address the ongoing teacher shortage in the Commonwealth, including those serving vulnerable students with special needs.”
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)© The Associated Press
On Monday, Laura Faer, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for California, told Joun that a temporary restraining order was urgently needed because the freeze on grants was already leading to staff being laid off and program being halted.
“The situation is dire right now,” she told the court. “As we speak, our programs across the state are facing the possibility of closure, termination.”
California is joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Adelaide Pagano, representing Massachusetts, argued the Education Department lacked the authority to cancel the grants and its move was not in accordance with the law. The form letters to grantees, she said, failed to provide a clear and reasonable explanation for the cancellations and wrongly changed the criteria in the middle of the grant process, something they could consider for future funding but not money already allocated.
Michael Fitzgerald, representing the government, insisted the Education Department was well within its authority to cancel the grants over the programs suspected of violating federal anti-discrimination laws and no longer aligning with the department's priorities. He also argued there was no need for immediate relief, since grantees could recoup their frozen funds if they prevail in their lawsuit.
Late Tuesday, the Trump administration appealed the order to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed.
Michael Casey, The Associated Press
Federal judge appears skeptical probationary firings were for performance
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs after a luncheon with the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and Ireland's Prime Minister Micheal Martin at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge repeatedly sounded skeptical on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s mass firings of probationary federal workers were made by the government because the employees couldn’t do their jobs, saying the terminations appeared to be part of a larger goal.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar made the comments at a hearing where nearly 20 states are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop any more firings of federal probationary employees and to reinstate those who have already been dismissed. If the dismissals were part of a large-scale reduction in force, there are certain laws guiding the process.
“This case isn’t about whether or not the government can terminate people. It’s about if they decide to terminate people how they must do it,” Bredar said. “Move fast and break things. Move fast, fine. Break things, if that involves breaking the law then that becomes problematic.”
The states argue that the Trump administration blindsided them by ignoring laws set out for large-scale layoffs, which could have devastating consequences for their state finances. At least 24,000 probationary employees have been terminated since Trump took office, the lawsuit alleges.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, argues that the states have no right to try and influence the federal government’s relationship with its own workers. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has said he’s targeting fraud, waste and abuse in a bloated federal government.
Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they’re usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection. Multiple lawsuits have been filed over the mass firings. One judge refused to block the firings in a lawsuit filed by unions, finding that the workers needed to go through the employment law system. Another found a memo underlying the layoffs was unlawful, but did not immediately block the firings or reinstate workers.
Elon Musk flashes his t-shirt that reads "DOGE" to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
This is the first lawsuit led by states and is being considered by Bredar, a judge appointed by President Barack Obama and based in Baltimore.
The Trump administration has brought a new perspective in terms of how the federal government should operate, how many people should work for the government and the work that the government should do across the board, Bredar said.
As a result, the judge said, the administration has decided to shift thousands of people out of federal employment, “which may well be their prerogative.” However, Bredar noted that this case centers on how they did it.
Bredar said the dismissals appeared to be more characteristic of a large-scale reduction in force, rather than simply ousting probationary workers because they could not do their jobs. Bredar said the employees appear to have been “terminated as a group in order to achieve a broader objective.”
While federal agencies claimed the employees were fired for unsatisfactory performance or conduct, the lawsuit led by the state of Maryland said the firings were part of the administration’s attempt to restructure and downsize the entire government.
That means the administration was required to follow federal laws and regulations that govern large-scale federal reductions in force, the lawsuit said. For example, regulations require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions, the attorneys said. Regulations also typically require 60 days’ advance notice of termination in a reduction in force.
Virginia Williamson, a Maryland assistant attorney general, argued at a hearing Wednesday that states are suffering “real and irreparable harm as a result of the failure to provide notice.” That’s because states use the information to help the unemployed find work.
“State rapid response agencies across the country need information about the number of employees who are going to be laid off in a mass layoff like the ones that the defendants did in order to provide information about resources for job hiring, information about unemployment benefits, to essentially forestall harms that could befall the state, that will befall the state, absent of any sort of intervention,” Williamson said.
The states also will suffer financially because they will need to support unemployed workers while contending with a sudden loss in state income tax revenue, she said.
U.S. deputy assistant attorney general Eric Hamilton contended that the probationary worker dismissals did not amount to a reduction in force.
“The documents that are in the record for actual federal government employees who were terminated show that there wasn’t a (reduction in force) and that these agencies made judgments that the probationers were not fit for federal government service,” Hamilton said.
The other states that have joined the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia also is a plaintiff.
The judge said he planned to issue a written decision “promptly.
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs after a luncheon with the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and Ireland's Prime Minister Micheal Martin at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge repeatedly sounded skeptical on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s mass firings of probationary federal workers were made by the government because the employees couldn’t do their jobs, saying the terminations appeared to be part of a larger goal.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar made the comments at a hearing where nearly 20 states are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop any more firings of federal probationary employees and to reinstate those who have already been dismissed. If the dismissals were part of a large-scale reduction in force, there are certain laws guiding the process.
“This case isn’t about whether or not the government can terminate people. It’s about if they decide to terminate people how they must do it,” Bredar said. “Move fast and break things. Move fast, fine. Break things, if that involves breaking the law then that becomes problematic.”
The states argue that the Trump administration blindsided them by ignoring laws set out for large-scale layoffs, which could have devastating consequences for their state finances. At least 24,000 probationary employees have been terminated since Trump took office, the lawsuit alleges.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, argues that the states have no right to try and influence the federal government’s relationship with its own workers. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has said he’s targeting fraud, waste and abuse in a bloated federal government.
Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they’re usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection. Multiple lawsuits have been filed over the mass firings. One judge refused to block the firings in a lawsuit filed by unions, finding that the workers needed to go through the employment law system. Another found a memo underlying the layoffs was unlawful, but did not immediately block the firings or reinstate workers.
Elon Musk flashes his t-shirt that reads "DOGE" to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
This is the first lawsuit led by states and is being considered by Bredar, a judge appointed by President Barack Obama and based in Baltimore.
The Trump administration has brought a new perspective in terms of how the federal government should operate, how many people should work for the government and the work that the government should do across the board, Bredar said.
As a result, the judge said, the administration has decided to shift thousands of people out of federal employment, “which may well be their prerogative.” However, Bredar noted that this case centers on how they did it.
Bredar said the dismissals appeared to be more characteristic of a large-scale reduction in force, rather than simply ousting probationary workers because they could not do their jobs. Bredar said the employees appear to have been “terminated as a group in order to achieve a broader objective.”
While federal agencies claimed the employees were fired for unsatisfactory performance or conduct, the lawsuit led by the state of Maryland said the firings were part of the administration’s attempt to restructure and downsize the entire government.
That means the administration was required to follow federal laws and regulations that govern large-scale federal reductions in force, the lawsuit said. For example, regulations require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions, the attorneys said. Regulations also typically require 60 days’ advance notice of termination in a reduction in force.
Virginia Williamson, a Maryland assistant attorney general, argued at a hearing Wednesday that states are suffering “real and irreparable harm as a result of the failure to provide notice.” That’s because states use the information to help the unemployed find work.
“State rapid response agencies across the country need information about the number of employees who are going to be laid off in a mass layoff like the ones that the defendants did in order to provide information about resources for job hiring, information about unemployment benefits, to essentially forestall harms that could befall the state, that will befall the state, absent of any sort of intervention,” Williamson said.
The states also will suffer financially because they will need to support unemployed workers while contending with a sudden loss in state income tax revenue, she said.
U.S. deputy assistant attorney general Eric Hamilton contended that the probationary worker dismissals did not amount to a reduction in force.
“The documents that are in the record for actual federal government employees who were terminated show that there wasn’t a (reduction in force) and that these agencies made judgments that the probationers were not fit for federal government service,” Hamilton said.
The other states that have joined the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia also is a plaintiff.
The judge said he planned to issue a written decision “promptly.
Find Trump in contempt of court and issue a ruling preventing the administration from launching prosecuting or defending any case until the contempt is purged.
For instance, a contractor takes an advance of $10B and then stiffs the Federal government and the Feds try and sue....... "Oh no, you can't file those papers. You're in contempt of this court and the Chief Judge has issues an order blocking any fed govt court filings without special leave."
