Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—4th Cir.: Stay denied in case involving reinstatement of thousands of federal workers, (Mar 24, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

A Maryland federal judge had previously issued a temporary restraining order ordering the return of thousands of probationary workers to federal agencies across all 50 states.

Given the district court’s intention to hold a hearing on March 26, 2025, and to promptly grant or deny preliminary injunctive relief thereafter, the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished order, declined to grant the government’s request for an administrative stay or a stay pending the resolution of the appeal. In a concurrence, Judge Rushing set forth her concerns over district courts issuing nationwide injunctions to order redress for those who have not sought it, and that courts should not lose sight of the fact that the states that did bring this action did so based on their own purported injuries, not for an injury to their citizens (State of Maryland v. USDA, No. 25-1248 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025, unpublished)).

RIF. In granting the states’ motion for a temporary restraining order, a federal district court in Maryland found that the large scale layoffs of federal employees in the name of efficiency actually constituted a reduction in force, and as such any layoffs were required to be preceded by notice to the states that would be impacted.

Plaintiff states. The plaintiffs in this case include 19 states and the District of Columbia. However, after balancing the public interest and the equities, the court opted to apply the TRO nationwide, noting that the mass terminations had placed “enormous strain” on all states, and the public’s interest in governmental institutions following the law and reducing the burden on the states was greater than the administration’s interest in carrying out its priorities, which may include mass terminations.

Further, the court determined that it would be inequitable for a federal employee’s status to turn on their physical location and whether their state of residence was a plaintiff in this action.

Upcoming hearing. Here, the appeals court denied the government’s request for an administrative stay or a stay pending the resolution of the appeal, noting that the district court had stated its intention to hold a hearing on March 26, 2025, and to promptly grant or deny preliminary injunctive relief thereafter.

Concurrence. In a concurrence, Judge Rushing agreed with the court’s decision to deny the government’s motion for a stay at this stage, given the timing of the motion and the district court’s anticipated ruling on preliminary injunctive relief. However, she did write to “echo the growing concerns” over district courts issuing nationwide injunctions to order redress for those who have not sought it. In this instance, the district court had extended its injunction to cover non-plaintiff states because: (1) “the Government’s policy is violative of the law across the board;” and (2) it “would be inequitable” for a federal employee’s status to turn on “the fortuity of their physical location.”

“Neither reason holds water,” said the judge. Although federal law requires an agency to notify a state of a reduction in force when 50 or more employees in a “competitive area”—a unit definable by the agency but which must be linked to geography—receive separation notices, the plaintiffs identified no allegations or evidence showing that 50 or more employees were terminated in competitive areas in non-plaintiff states. Accordingly, explained the judge, the court had no basis to conclude that the government violated federal law by failing to notify those states about any RIFs, and consequently no basis to conclude that the government’s actions were illegal “across the board.”

Further, continued the judge, the district court had lost sight of who the plaintiffs are and what injury they claimed when it concluded a nationwide injunction was warranted. The states had sought redress for their own purported injuries flowing from the lack of notice, not for an injury to their citizens. As such, the question was not whether it was inequitable for a federal employee’s reinstatement to turn on their state of residence, but rather whether it was inequitable to redress notice-based injuries only for those states that had actually claimed to be injured by the lack of notice, concluded the judge.

The case is No. 25-1248.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: James David Handley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, for State of Maryland. Stacy Marie Chaffin, Oregon Department of Justice, for State of Oregon. Courtney Lynn Dixon, U.S. Department of Justice, for U.S. Department of Agriculture.

MainStory: TopStory RemediesDamages Discharge PublicEmployees MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews