Trump Administration’s Labor Actions Face Legal Challenges

A series of personnel decisions made by the Trump administration have sparked legal battles and raised concerns about the rights of federal employees. The actions, which include the firing of officials overseeing key labor relations and civil service protections, are being challenged in court as potentially illegal and an attempt to undermine the established processes for federal worker grievances.

In early February, an aide to President Trump initiated a chain of events that sent shockwaves through the federal workforce. Emails were dispatched, swiftly terminating the heads of two critical boards: one responsible for addressing complaints related to federal workers’ labor unions and another tasked with safeguarding federal civil service workers from partisan political influence. White House personnel aide Trent Morse delivered the brief "thank you for your service" messages to both women, effectively ending their tenures.

These firings, occurring within a mere three and a half minutes, effectively crippled two primary avenues through which federal workers could challenge labor-related issues that had arisen since Trump took office. Just three days prior, the administration had also dismissed the head of an office serving as the workers’ third recourse.

The ousted officials, all appointees of Democrat Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate to fixed terms, have filed lawsuits against Trump and his administration, seeking reinstatement and arguing that their dismissals were unlawful. Judges have already granted temporary reinstatement to two of them.

These independent agencies, designed by Congress to be the sole venue for federal employees to contest firings, were targeted shortly before the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency implemented mass terminations of probationary, early-hire status employees.

A federal judge in California issued a temporary injunction, preventing the Trump administration from ordering agencies to fire probationary employees, although the judge did not order the rehiring of those already terminated. The case, initiated by unions and nonprofit organizations, remains ongoing, while Trump and Musk reportedly plan a large-scale reduction in force potentially commencing in two weeks.

Richard Hirn, a labor lawyer representing federal workers’ unions, asserted that Trump’s actions were intended to obstruct federal employees’ ability to challenge their terminations. He noted that in previous cases, when unions attempted to seek redress through the courts, judges directed them to exhaust the proper administrative channels.

"He’s engaging in illegal actions to deprive federal employees of the right to have their cases heard by the administrative agencies that Congress has created and designated to protect their rights," Hirn stated.

Thomas Berry, director of constitutional studies at the conservative Cato Institute, suggested that Trump’s actions may be aimed at expediting a Supreme Court review of legal precedents protecting the heads of independent agencies from presidential oversight.

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly issued a statement asserting, "President Trump is committed to building a team fully committed to advancing his America-First agenda."

Federal law, enacted during President Jimmy Carter’s administration, established a complex system of boards and agencies to serve as workers’ recourse for contesting firings, preventing them from directly suing the government.

Carter’s law expanded upon previous laws, dating back to 1883, that established the civil service, replacing a system allowing presidents to appoint allies to government roles regardless of qualifications and easily fire government workers deemed disloyal.

The law created the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency headed by a Special Counsel nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a set term, removable only for cause. The office serves as the initial point of contact for federal employees suspecting unlawful termination, particularly in cases of whistleblowing.

The Special Counsel can advocate on behalf of employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board, similar to a prosecutor presenting a case to a judge. The three-member board, whose members are nominated by presidents and confirmed by the Senate, determines the validity of firings.

Permanent workers can directly petition the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding wrongful firings, while probationary employees require representation from the Office of Special Counsel.

Hirn emphasized the difficulty of swiftly reinstating probationary employees without a Special Counsel willing to champion their cause, suggesting lengthy court battles as the alternative.

Workers contesting working condition issues through their labor unions typically proceed to arbitration with the federal government, as stipulated by union contracts. Appeals of arbiter decisions are then directed to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, another three-member board with nominated and confirmed members.

Probationary employees terminated around Valentine’s Day are relying on the Office of Special Counsel to regain their positions. Six employees, seeking to represent all fired probationary workers across various agencies, have requested the current Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, to advocate on their behalf.

Federal law dictates that probationary employees can only be terminated for poor performance substantiated by individualized reviews. However, the Trump administration issued nearly identical emails citing poor performance as the reason for their terminations, prompting lawyers to argue that it was a thinly veiled reduction in force requiring 60 days’ notice.

However, Dellinger himself was fired by a Trump aide on February 7 in a one-sentence email, despite his term not expiring until 2029. Dellinger sued, arguing that his removal was illegal as it lacked proof of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

The Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration, argued that the president has the authority to remove Dellinger because he heads an executive agency and that the Office of Special Counsel should not receive special treatment. The department’s lawyers asserted that the Special Counsel’s tenure protection was unconstitutional and has been repeatedly objected to by the executive branch.

Berry, from the Cato Institute, described the case as "part of a long-running debate" regarding the president’s power over independent agencies and boards, adding that Trump is "kind of pushing the issue."

A court temporarily reinstated Dellinger, who promptly requested the Merit Systems Protection Board to pause the terminations of the six probationary employees and reinstate them while he investigated their cases. Dellinger issued a statement vowing to "continue to pursue" allegations of illegal personnel actions.

"If he had been removed permanently, he wouldn’t have been able to make that decision, and all of those employees would’ve been out of luck," stated Melanie Stratton, an attorney with the Workplace Justice Lab at Northwestern University.

Dellinger’s case remains ongoing, and his future removal remains possible. Hirn emphasized the potential impact on the 200,000 employees who had been in their jobs for less than a year when the probationary employee firings commenced: "Whether 200,000 people lose their job or not really at this very moment is dependent on the Special Counsel and whether he is in office."

The Trump administration expressed its desire to appoint Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins to Dellinger’s position. The Department of Veterans Affairs accounted for 28% of the Special Counsel’s caseload in 2023, the most of any federal agency.

Devine, a lawyer for whistleblowers, criticized the move, arguing that running the Department of Veterans Affairs is already a full-time job and that there is an inherent conflict of interest.

Earlier this month, the Merit Systems Protection Board agreed with Dellinger, temporarily pausing the terminations of six employees and reinstating them at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, and the Office of Personnel Management.

Dellinger warned agency heads that he would "continue to pursue allegations of unlawful personnel actions," including seeking relief for additional affected workers, and urged agency leaders to "voluntarily and immediately rescind any and every unlawful termination of probationary employees."

Trump’s dismissal of Cathy Harris, the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, just before 11 p.m. on February 10, nearly derailed this process. The board was left with only two members – Raymond Limon, a Democrat whose term expires Saturday, and Henry Kerner, a Republican. However, a court temporarily reinstated Harris after she sued.

The Department of Justice argued that Trump has the power to remove Harris because executive power rests with him and she is performing an executive function. The department wrote, "The president must be able to remove board members at will."

Harris’s term runs until 2028, while Limon’s term expires on March 1. Without three members, a quorum would be lacking if one member recused themselves, as has happened before.

When Harris took her job in 2022, her office had about 3,800 backlogged cases due to the board lacking a quorum for five years, a period that began during Trump’s first term when he delayed making appointments. Harris wrote in her lawsuit that she finished processing all but 56 of those cases.

Approximately 2.1 million federal workers are covered by union contracts, enabling them to seek union assistance in challenging what they deem unfair labor practices. Their initial step would be arbitration, followed by appeals to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Trump fired its board chair, Susan Grundmann, on February 10, just three and a half minutes before firing Cathy Harris. She is suing to be reinstated, but in the meantime, Trump appointed Colleen Kiko, a Republican member, as chair, leaving her with only one other member, Democrat Anne Wagner.

The Justice Department argued that Trump has the authority to fire people who assist him in carrying out his duties, asserting that "The President cannot be compelled to retain the services of a principal officer whom he no longer believes should be entrusted with executive power."

Hirn suggested that the two remaining members would likely deadlock on decisions, leaving appeals on arbitration decisions unresolved. He said cases would sit undecided, and federal agencies would not have to comply with employee awards.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Massachusetts rejected attempts by labor unions to block the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program, which offered workers eight months of pay to quit immediately.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., told a union representing Treasury Department employees that it should have gone to the Federal Labor Relations Authority before attempting to challenge terminations of probationary employees, large-scale reductions in force, and the deferred resignation program. Other judges made similar rulings.

However, a federal judge in San Francisco ordered the Trump administration to rescind memos leading to the firings of probationary employees, deeming the mass terminations likely unlawful.

The Justice Department argued that the unions lacked legal standing to bring the case and should take their claims to the Federal Labor Relations Authority or the Merit Systems Protection Board. While the judge agreed the unions likely lacked standing, he said that members of nonprofits affected by the layoffs had lawfully sued.

"Imagine you’re an employee, and you’re at a three-way stop," said Stratton. "And you can go to the Office of Special Counsel, but the Special Counsel got removed. Then, ‘OK, I’m going to look to my union.’ But then you realize the appeal rights of your union were removed."

"Then you say, ‘OK, OK, I’m going to go to the MSPB,’" Stratton said. "But then you realize that one of the board members at the MSPB has been removed. That’s functionally what the Trump administration tried to do. They haven’t been fully successful in that, but that’s what they tried to do."