One of the most loved or loathed aspects of the federal government is that it is extremely difficult to corner. Our “three-wheel-drive” constitutional imperative was designed such that each branch was tethered to the others and pulling in one specific direction, holding everything in place until all worked together to build some momentum. The beauty or horror arises from the fact that once it gets going in the right direction it takes a herculean effort, involving multiple branches, to make major overnight changes. Thus it is that if the Biden Administration had come in and wanted to establish “The Department of DEI” as a cabinet-level position with authority to mandate “diversity” in every senior position across every other department, it would’ve had a difficult time doing so without Congress footing the bill and the courts saying, “Sure, you can fire the white guy and put in whomever… ” It couldn’t happen – which matters in evaluating the flip side coming from the Trump administration. The DOGE folks are peddling tens of thousands of terminations of federal employees and doing so almost overnight. In order to stay in the legal lane, the terminations had to be “for cause” – or the kids in the black robes might have something to say, as we all heard this week.
To set it out with stark clarity, federal employees that are past probationary periods can only be fired for poor performance or other adequate and individualized reasons. Anything else requires an act of Congress. To that end, many former agency workers have sued the Trump administration, asserting that they were fired in accord with a sweeping new agenda that had nothing to do with how they performed at work. So far, two judges agree (With respect to the wrongful termination issue alone, Judge Chutkan refused to deny DOGE access to databases with employee information.). Both judges issued injunctions this week that reinstate fired federal employees. The two orders will almost surely be consolidated and appealed as one – perhaps straight to the Supreme Court. Per a report in Rawstory:
According to The New York Times, one judge “said in his lengthy ruling that the government’s contention that the firings of the probationary employees had been for cause, and not a mass layoff, ‘borders on the frivolous.’” Another judge “concluded much the same and made it clear that he thought the manner in which the Trump administration had fired the probationary workers was a ‘sham.’”
“Sham” is not a word you want associated with your position in front of a U.S. District Court judge – so, back to the huddle. It will be up to Trump administration lawyers to figure out a way to prove that something in these employees’ backgrounds warranted the termination or find a way to get Congress to back the agenda with a new law.
Meanwhile, the White House left non-lawyer Spokesperson Karoline Levitt out on a political island to stumble through a gaggle in which she essentially admitted the legally significant fact that the layoffs had nothing to do with job performance. Unfortunately for the Trump administration, Leavitt is the official spokesperson and her comments may well be offered up as evidence down the road. She ran into difficulties immediately in calling the injunctions unconstitutional rather than affirming that the terminations were perfectly legal or constitutional. It only got worse from there:
“[F]or anybody who has a basic understanding of the law, you cannot have a low level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the president of the United States.”
Yes. You can. And you will see below that Leavitt admits that it’s been done before to many administrations, indeed – it happens in every administration (Or they’re not trying hard enough).
“That is completely absurd, and as the executive of the executive branch, the president has the ability to fire or hire. And you have these lower level judges who are trying to, uh, block this president’s agenda.”
Said with the blissful innocence of someone who will never find herself in oral argument in front of said “low level” U.S. District Court judges. Yes, the Executive branch has authority to hire and fire but it must do so legally and that’s right up the third wheel of the gavel-heads.
“It’s very clear, and as I just cited, I was appalled by the statistic when I saw it this morning in three or, uh, in one month in February, there have been 15 injunctions of this administration in our agenda. In three years under the Biden administration, there were 14 injunctions. So, uh, it’s very clear that there are judicial activists throughout our judicial branch who are trying to block this president’s executive authority.”
The number of injunctions against any president or the number in a certain time frame is almost irrelevant because it’s wholly dependent on an agency-action at issue. If the EPA very suddenly banned a common fertilizer there could be two-dozen injunctions filed within a week – these are highly fact-specific. They follow sudden changes, whether one believes in those changes or not. Injunctions merely test whether the action was done legally – the numbers per administration are all but meaningless. What is important is that Leavitt just admitted that, yes – those same wily judges that are such a buzzkill now were there doing their blocking thing with Biden policies, too. (And Obama, and Trump “Muslim Travel Ban…”)
Several legal commenters noted that Leavitt didn’t even make an attempt to say that they had evaluated each employee individually. She framed the entire matter as one of President Trump’s “agenda” – which, no one doubts that it is. But it is that whole “law thing” again that drives judges crazy. Fortunately for Leavitt, she likely won’t have anyone focusing on the “dis” she flung in parting:
“They are led by partisan activists, who are trying to usurp the will of this president and we’re not going to stand for it.”
They are appealing the rulings and we’ll see how it all holds up as they go higher. The SCOTUS is designed such that it can be more political and isn’t afraid to do so (Talk about partisanship). District Court judges have to follow the law in place. To that end, Leavitt sure didn’t help their case going up.
It sounds very much like Leavitt just admitted that the firings were part of Trump's "agenda." https://t.co/Pu0qDcgKX5
— Andrew Heineman (@drewheineman) March 14, 2025
You actually can. That's why we have three branches of government. https://t.co/uOnMHDzLfw
— Aaron Parnas (@AaronParnas) March 14, 2025
Will the orders hold up? So far the “low-levels” haven’t had too much trouble halting the thing in place. Believe it or not, judges are acutely aware of the fact that they constitute “one person” with a pen and that holding up the entire federal government is a major major deal and thus often look for ways to avoid crashing the whole thing down. The fact that two judges did order the terminations stopped might indicate that the law is fairly clear and the harm is very imminent. What is known is that the admission that all of this is part of an agenda may make it much harder to argue otherwise – perhaps leaving “high level” judges (Called “justices”) to tell the administration to take its agenda to Congress.
Our government corners a little better when all three wheels are edging in the same direction and it’s tough to slow down a nation’s government that had been firing fairly well… We will soon see whether the courts sign on or call out the administration for blowing a tire.
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and on twitter-X at @JasonMiciak, and follow now on Bluesky.
Friends, we are struggling to make ends meet. It’s not just us, it’s industry wide. There are star hosts being bumped on MSNBC as we speak. (Joy Reid and Alex Wagner) So if you can afford a small donation or a monthly subscription, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Ursula
I’m sure Ms. Leavitt was fine with judges stopping Biden from cancelling student debt.