Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—4th Cir.: Divided appeals court halts preliminary injunction requiring reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal workers, (Apr 10, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had just stayed a similar preliminary injunction issued by a California district court in OPM v. AFGE.

In a brief order, a divided three-member panel of the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction that had required the reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal employees who resided or worked in 19 states and the District of Columbia and had also barred any further alleged reductions in force except in compliance with federal notice requirements. In a lengthy dissent, Judge Deandrea Enjamin argued that the stay should have been denied (State of Maryland v. USDA, No. 25-1248 (4th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025, unpublished)).

Underlying action. The plaintiffs in this case include 19 states and the District of Columbia. They filed suit against 41 defendants, including cabinet agencies and their secretaries, and other federal agencies and their respective heads. The states challenged the government’s termination of probationary federal employees and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

Injunctive relief. On March 13, a federal district court in Maryland held that the large-scale layoffs of federal employees in the name of “efficiency” actually constituted a reduction in force (RIF), and as such they had to be preceded by notice to the states that would be impacted. Granting the states’ motion for a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO), the court held that the recent directives of various federal agencies terminating probationary employees must be stayed. The states then moved for a preliminary injunction.

In a lengthy order issued on April 1, the court granted the states’ bid for a preliminary injunction and required the government to reinstate the probationary employees who resided or worked in in the plaintiff states and refrain from further alleged reductions in force except in compliance with the notice requirements of Section 3502. However, the court limited the scope of the injunction to those federal probationary workers whose sudden layoffs have harmed, are harming, or will continue to harm the plaintiff states if not immediately stopped. The government appealed.

Stay granted pending appeal. The government argued that the district court’s preliminary injunction should be stayed because, among other things, the states lacked Article III standing to challenge the terminations. The government also argued that district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provided the exclusive means for review of personnel actions taken against federal employees.

Granting the government’s bid for a stay of the preliminary injunction, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the government satisfied the factors for a stay under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009) since it was likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over the states’ claims and was also unlikely to recover the funds disbursed to reinstated probationary employees. The appeals court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had just stayed a similar preliminary injunction issued by a California district court in OPM v. AFGE, No. 24A904 (U.S. Apr. 8, 2025).

Dissent. Issuing a lengthy dissent, Judge Deandrea Enjamin explained that she would have denied the government’s motion, and in particular would have found that the states “clearly have standing to challenge the process by which the Government has engaged in mass firings;” that the Civil Service Reform Act did not defeat the district court’s jurisdiction; and that the government could not satisfy the standard for a stay pending appeal.

The case is No. 25-1248.

Judge: Rushing, A.

Attorneys: Julia Doyle, Office of the Attorney General, for State of Maryland. Courtney Lynn Dixon, U.S. Department of Justice, for U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Cases: RemediesDamages PublicEmployees Layoffs Discharge MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews