Fourth Circuit cans states' suit over Trump layoffs

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A Fourth Circuit panel on Monday rejected a challenge by 19 states and the District of Columbia to President Donald Trump’s mass layoffs of probationary federal employees, finding the states lacked standing to bring the case.

Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, found the employees suffered injury, not the states. The 19 states and D.C. claim Trump’s breakneck mass firings of at least 24,000 probationary workers violated several legal procedures, including a provision requiring the government to give 60 days’ notice before any reduction in force. They sued 41 federal executive departments, their secretaries, other federal agencies and their heads.

Wilkinson voiced sympathy for the challenges of the mass layoffs, but only for the employees.

‘We acknowledge that the abrupt and indiscriminate dismissal of the probationary employees here exacted all-too-human costs upon those affected," Wilkinson wrote. “But this real impact on the employees, who are not parties here, cannot govern our review.”

The panel granted the federal government’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction requiring the reinstatement of thousands of federal employees in a 2-1 ruling.

U.S. Circuit Court Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin dissented, writing that the majority ignored harms like increased unemployment benefits applications, including a 330% increase in Maryland, and unanticipated loss in tax revenue.

“Nowhere have the states asked to micromanage the government,” the Joe Biden appointee wrote. “They ask merely for what they are due — notice under the statutes and regulations.”

The states argued they suffered from a failure to obtain the specific information mandated by the reduction-in-force notice requirement, which led to a loss in preparatory time to handle the layoffs. Wilkinson wrote that even if there was harm it has passed, leaving damages as the appropriate remedy to seek rather than injunctive relief.

Wilkinson did not address the federal government’s contention that the mass firings were not reductions in force, which trigger the 60-day notice mandate, but rather merit-based firings.

The matter of redressability is also a problem for the states, according to Wilkinson. The majority agreed with the federal government that a broad rehiring of the employees does not match the purported injury.

“The plaintiffs’ requested equitable remedy primarily served to vindicate the interests and rights of the non-party probationary employees,” Wilkinson wrote. “This creates a fatal disconnect between the plaintiffs’ alleged injury and the sweeping relief they requested.”

In siding with the federal government, Wilkinson relied on the 2023 Supreme Court case United States v. Texas . In Texas , the state sought to overturn Biden-era immigration guidelines that it argued put an unfair financial burden on it. The high court ruled that downstream harms to state resources and budgets from the federal government’s personnel actions are indirect harms that are not cognizable injuries.

Wilkinson scolded the states for what, in his view, is an attempt to assert control over the federal government.

“It is hard to imagine a more traditionally federal function than the management of the federal workforce. The federal workforce performs federal functions,” Wilkinson wrote. “How it performs them is a matter of federal concern.”

Wilkinson warned that siding with the states would upend the federalist system by “ceding federal sovereignty to the states."

“Innumerable federal actions impact state budgets and programs. Under plaintiffs’ theory, every modification in federal funding levels would authorize states to sue in federal court,” Wilkinson wrote. “If we recognized a cognizable injury here, there would be no end to the suits that states could bring to contest any federal action.”

The plaintiff states include Maryland, Minnesota, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. Four of the 19 states went to Trump in the 2024 election.

“We are disappointed in today’s decision from the Fourth Circuit. But this setback won’t stop us from doing everything we can to stand with federal employees who are being terminated by this reckless administration,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. “As we assess our next steps, we will continue to fight for Oregon’s values, which are rooted in fairness, dignity, and respect for working people.”

The Fourth Circuit will meet en banc Thursday to analyze Trump’s executive order giving members of the Department of Government Efficiency access to government employees’ personal information, including Social Security numbers.

Attorneys representing the federal government did not respond to requests for comment. U.S. Circuit Court Judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, completed the panel.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown’s spokesperson, Jennifer Donelan, said the office is weighing its options