A legal battle is brewing as a coalition of 20 attorneys general takes on the Trump administration over what they call illegal mass layoffs of federal employees. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Maryland, accuses multiple federal agencies of violating legal requirements by failing to provide proper notice before firing thousands of probationary federal workers.
The attorneys general, representing 19 states and Washington, D.C., argue that these sudden terminations were carried out unlawfully, leaving employees blindsided and states scrambling to provide necessary resources. Among the defendants named in the lawsuit is the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which allegedly directed agencies to terminate probationary employees “suddenly and without any advance notice.”
Why This Lawsuit Matters
The legal action claims that under federal law, agencies are required to give employees a 60-day written notice before executing a “Reduction-in-Force” (RIF). Additionally, when 50 or more employees within an agency are affected, state governments must be notified so they can prepare to assist displaced workers.
These notifications aren’t just a formality. They serve a crucial purpose:
-
Financial Planning: Laid-off employees need time to budget for lost income and seek new job opportunities.
-
State Support Mobilization: States require time to organize job placement services, offer retraining programs, and connect affected workers with social assistance programs.
According to the lawsuit, the Trump administration’s failure to provide these notices has left thousands of workers and their families struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, states have been forced to expend additional resources just to determine which agencies conducted layoffs and which employees require urgent support.
A Political and Legal Firestorm
“The Trump administration's illegal mass firings of federal workers are a slap in the face to those who have spent their careers serving our country,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a strong rebuke of the administration’s actions.
The attorneys general from Maryland, Minnesota, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C., have joined forces in this lawsuit, demanding accountability and compliance with federal employment laws.
Their goal? A court order halting further mass layoffs without proper notice and reinstating workers who have been terminated since January 20, 2025.
The Broader Implications
The controversy stems from the White House’s and the Department of Government Efficiency’s broader initiative to reduce the federal workforce. Thousands of probationary employees—those who have served in their roles for less than two years—have already been dismissed as part of this effort.
However, a significant legal development occurred just last week. A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the OPM must withdraw its memos instructing agencies to terminate probationary employees, stating that the agency had overstepped its legal authority. Following this ruling, the OPM quietly revised its guidance, now clarifying that individual agencies—not the OPM—bear responsibility for firing federal workers.
What Happens Next?
The lawsuit is a major challenge to the administration’s workforce reduction efforts and could set a legal precedent for how federal layoffs are handled in the future. If successful, it could force agencies to reinstate employees who were fired without due process and ensure that future layoffs follow proper legal channels.
As of now, the White House has not issued an official response to the lawsuit, and all eyes are on the federal courts to see how this legal battle unfolds. One thing is certain—this fight is far from over, and its outcome could have long-lasting effects on federal employment policies and the rights of workers across the nation.
Login