A federal judge, who previously ordered the Trump administration to reinstate nearly 25,000 fired government employees, said on Wednesday he might limit his ruling to workers in Washington, D.C., and the 19 states that filed a lawsuit over the mass firings.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar, during a hearing in Baltimore, Maryland, expressed concern about his authority to issue an order that affects states not involved in the lawsuit. He said, “This court has great reluctance to issue a national injunction.” However, Bredar clarified that a nationwide injunction could still be possible if it is essential to address the harm the plaintiffs are facing.
Bredar acknowledged that nationwide injunctions are controversial and that the power of judges to issue such orders remains unclear. The Trump administration and other Republican leaders have argued that such orders overstep the president’s authority.
To allow time for further consideration, Bredar extended his March 13 temporary restraining order, which was set to expire on Thursday, until April 1. This extension provides time for him to rule on the request to block the mass firings of probationary workers until the lawsuit’s outcome. Probationary workers are typically those with less than a year of service, though some have been with the federal government for much longer.
Bredar asked both parties to submit briefs by Thursday morning outlining the appropriate scope of the injunction. Virginia Williamson, the attorney representing the states, argued that a nationwide injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiffs from the consequences of the firings, including lost tax revenue and increased unemployment claims. She pointed out that some federal employees work and live in different states.
In response, U.S. Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton argued that the firings were not unlawful but suggested that any injunction should apply only to the states involved in the lawsuit.
Bredar had initially ordered the reinstatement of about 24,500 workers on March 13, stating that the mass firings appeared to violate regulations governing federal employee layoffs. A U.S. appeals court declined to pause his ruling last week, but a judge appointed by Trump criticized the nationwide scope of the order.
The case involves 18 federal agencies, including the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Treasury. The mass firings were part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to reduce the federal workforce and cut government spending. While some agencies terminated only a few hundred workers, others dismissed thousands.
According to recent filings, most of the fired workers have agreed to return to their positions, although a few hundred chose to resign or take other jobs. Most of the reinstated workers are currently on paid leave, and some agencies are working to restore workers to full duty.
The states involved in the lawsuit argue that the mass firings were illegal because federal regulations require agencies to give state and local governments 60 days’ notice before conducting mass layoffs.
On Wednesday, Bredar indicated that he had not changed his stance on the firings being unlawful. He rejected the argument by Hamilton that courts cannot order federal agencies to reinstate fired workers, saying, “I’m not going to casually conclude that Congress set up this whole statutory process designed to protect states from the consequences of large federal layoffs, and then just casually said ‘oh, but if the federal government … disobeys the law, there’s nothing that the states can do about it.'”
Meanwhile, a judge in San Francisco also ordered the reinstatement of probationary workers at six agencies, though on different legal grounds. This case involves five agencies included in Bredar’s ruling, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense. The Trump administration has appealed that decision and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt it until the case is resolved.
The case is Maryland v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 25-cv-748.
Related topics:
