Rob Bonta

By Miriam Raftery

Photo by Anne Meador: Federal workers protest at Capitol (CC by NC-ND)

March 14, 2025 – Two federal judges have ruled that the Trump administration’s mass firing of federal workers was illegal.  Both judges ordered thousands of probationary fired workers rehired, at least temporarily, though the two rulings differed on the scope of agencies affected. Combined, the two rulings order that 18 agencies immediately rehire those fired, affecting a broad range of jobs from national park rangers to Veterans’ Administration workers and many more.

 The judges also issued scathing rebukes of the purge of agencies done by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and accused the administration of lying when it claimed the firings were based on performance issues, since many of the laid-off workers had extremely positive performance reviews.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco called the mass terminations a “sham.”  He stated in open court, “It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie.  That should not have been done in our country.”

Judge Alsup ordered the immediate rehiring of fired probationary employees in these six departments:  Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. That lawsuit was filed by federal employees’ unions. His order lasts until  whenever the case’s outcome is ultimately resolved in court, a process that could take years.

U.S. District Judge James Bredar in New York issued a broader but more temporarily order in a case filed by Democrat state attorneys general.  Judge Breder’s order requires 18 federal departments to immediately rehire the fired probationary workers for at least 14 days, though he indicated he would consider a longer relief.

His order requires reemployment be offered to the fired probationary workers in these departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior (which includes the National Park Service), Labor, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration.

However, Bredar found the states’ failed to meet the burden of proof to show illegal firings at three other agencies, which he excluded from his ruling:  the Defense Department, Office of Personnel Management, and the National Archives and Records Administration.

Judge Bredar found that the mass firings failed to provide 60 days required notice and follow other requirements,  and concluded, “The sheer number of employees that were terminated in a matter of days belies any argument that these terminations were due to the employees’ individual performance or conduct...The government’s contention to the contrary borders on the frivolous.”

Bredar also found arguments from the states compelling, noting that the lack of notice left states “impaired in their capacities to meet their legal obligations to the citizens.”

Judge Alsup bristled at the Justice Department’s refusal to make acting Office of Management and Budget Director Charles Ezell available for testimony yesterday, and suggested the Trump administration’s attorneys were withholding information on who directed the mass firings.

The Trump administration has already filed an appeal in one case and will likely do so in both.  White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement after the ruling, saying, “A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch...If a federal district court would like executive powers, they can try and run for President themselves,” she sniped. “The Trump Administration will immediately fight back against this absurd and unconstitutional order.”

In fact, the hiring and firing of federal employees is dictated by federal law, which contains numerous civil service worker protections. In addition, many legal scholars have said it is illegal for the Executive branch to usurp the power of Congress, which created many of the agencies being gutted under the guise of streamlining government efficiency and saving taxpayers’ money.

Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said he is “pleased with Judge Alsup’s order to immediately reinstate tens of thousands of probationary federal employees who were illegally fired from their jobs by an administration hellbent on crippling federal agencies and their work on behalf of the American public.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who led efforts to sue the Trump administration on behalf of states, issued this statement: “The Trump Administration’s callous and reckless mass firing of probationary federal employees has caused chaos and prevented these workers from providing critical services that affect the everyday lives of Americans, from offering support for veterans and farmers, to protecting our cherished national parks and public lands.”

Bonta added, “I am pleased that the federal district court has promptly granted our request for a temporary restraining order, which will block the Administration’s unlawful mass firing directive and reinstate affected employees. I, alongside my fellow attorneys general, will be closely monitoring to ensure that the Administration follows the court’s order.”

Sources:

https://www.newsweek.com/list-federal-agencies-rehire-fired-employees-2044763

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5325694/maryland-court-fired-federal-employees-trump

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/judge-trump-reinstate-thousands-fired-federal-workers/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=089i2Ex5Nlw 

 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/03/trump-mass-firings-doj-judge-youre-fired.html

https://www.afscme.org/press/releases/2025/federal-court-orders-reinstatement-of-fired-probationary-federal-employees

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-live-updates-president-ordered-by-judge-to-rehire-thousands-of-workers-which-doge-fired/ar-AA1yZWhw

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/MD%20v.%20USDA%20-%20TRO%20Order.pdf

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/federal-judges-order-trump-to-rehire-thousands-of-fired-probationary-federal-employees-234392133708

East County News Service

February 22, 2025 (New York) -- California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released a statement after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's issuance of a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing Americans’ personal and private information maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department.

“We are pleased the court granted our request to further halt the Elon Musk-led DOGE from accessing millions of Americans’ private and sensitive data,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Californians can breathe a sigh of relief knowing the California Department of Justice is going to the mat for them and standing up against the Trump Administration’s chilling overreach of power.”  

Background

On February 7, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit seeking to block DOGE from accessing sensitive Treasury Department material, including millions of Americans’ bank account and social security numbers. Hours after filing the lawsuit, the court responded by granting a temporary restraining order barring DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems and information. Today’s preliminary injunction keeps those restrictions in place pending further order of the court.

Since Inauguration Day, DOGE has infiltrated executive agencies with the goal of eliminating federal funding, services, and personnel. Starting last month, there were reports of billionaire Elon Musk and his DOGE associates gaining an unprecedented level of access to vital payment systems of the U.S Treasury.

The Treasury Department payment systems — managed by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) — are responsible for trillions of dollars in U.S. government payments. Millions of Americans rely on the support of these payments for services like health care, childcare, and other essential programs, including Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, veterans’ benefits, salaries for federal employees, and tax refunds. The Treasury Department’s payment systems are critical, sensitive, and incredibly vital. Given their critical importance to U.S. government operations, these systems have been highly regulated and tightly guarded — but with the election of Donald Trump, are no longer safe. 

In their complaint, the attorneys general allege the Trump Administration has no constitutional, statutory, or regulatory authority to widen access to the BFS payment system for political appointees or special government employees, including members of DOGE. 

Specifically, the court temporarily prohibits DOGE from being granted access any Treasury Dept. records containing personally identifiable or confidential financial information. The Dept. of the Treasury must submit a report to the court by March 24 certifying that DOGE team members have received all training typically required of individuals granted access to the Bureau of Fiscal Services payment systems containing personal data such as tax return information and sensitive financial data.

In addition, the judge asks for certification on the vetting process for DOGE team members and how that compares to career employees previously allowed access to the system.

“The public interest is plainly served by requiring the Treasury Department to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the security of these systems and the information contained therein,” Judge Jeannette A. Vargas wrote.

A copy of the court's order can be found here.

East County News Service

February 9, 2025 (Oakland, CA) – Last week, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Trump administration from carrying out a spending freeze. “Each day that the pause continues to ripple across the country is an additional day that Americans are being denied access to programs that heal them, house them, and feed them,” Judge Loren AliKhan wrote in the ruling.

Now California Attorney General is accusing the Trump administration of defying the judge’s order and continuing to block funds to states under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA and the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also known as the bipartisan infrastructure act). Bonta on Feb. 7 filed a motion on behalf of 23 state attorneys general. The motion asks the court to enforce the earlier ruling and and to order Defendants to immediately restore funds until the preliminary injunction motion can be heard and decided.

The coalition seeks to preliminarily enjoin the Trump Administration’s funding freeze, emphasizing the widespread and irreparable harm to states, which rely on billions of dollars of critical federal assistance for public services that ensure access to education, clean air and water, and health care and that support essential infrastructure projects.  More than $100 billion in Medicaid funding, tens of billions in infrastructure and climate funding, among the funding at risk in just California, according to a press release issued by Bonta. 

The case, NY v.Trump, challenges actions by President Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and federal agencies attempting to pause nearly $3 trillion in federal assistance funding allocated to the states that support critical programs and services that benefit the American people. 

The Trump administration has argued that the injunction doesn’t apply to IRA and IIJA funds, the motion indicates. But the judge’s order makes no mention of any such exception.

Bonta’s motion further highlights the harm states face without these funds .

“Let’s be crystal clear: the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the President,” said Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s dangerous and unconstitutional actions have created chaos and confusion across this country, and caused significant harm to states across the country and the millions of Americans who rely on federal funding, from children to the elderly. In yet another unlawful move, we have evidence that despite the Temporary Restraining Order we secured, the Trump Administration has continued to block funds needed for our domestic energy security, transportation, and infrastructure provided under the IRA and IIJA.”

He added, ”We’re asking the court to enforce its order and ensure that the Trump Administration reinstates access to this critical funding. No one is above the law, and at the California Department of Justice, we will not waver in our commitment to uphold the law and ensure that necessary funding for critical programs and services in states across our country can continue.”

In just this fiscal year, California is expected to receive $168 billion in federal funds – 34% of the state’s budget – not including funding for the state’s public college and university system. This includes $107.5 billion in funding for California’s Medicaid programs, which serve approximately 14.5 million Californians, including 5 million children and 2.3 million seniors and people with disabilities. Additionally, over 9,000 full-time equivalent state employee positions are federally funded. As detailed in the preliminary injunction motion, without access to federal financial assistance, many states could face immediate cash shortfalls, making it difficult to administer basic programs like funding for healthcare and food for children and to address their most pressing needs.

Additionally, as of January 2025, California has been awarded $63 billion from the IIJA and nearly $5 billion from the IRA, not including funds going to California cities, air and water districts, or other political subdivisions. Due to ongoing disruptions impacting disbursements to states despite the court’s TRO, efforts that bolster clean energy investments, transportation, and infrastructure have been put at risk, including:

• The Home Electrification and Appliances Rebates Program, for which the IRA appropriates $4.5 billion to the Department of Energy. The rebate program, administered by state energy offices under final federal grants, subsidizes low- and moderate-income households’ purchase and installation of electric heat pump water heaters, electric heat pump space heating and cooling systems, and other home electrification projects. Thousands of California homeowners have signed up for these programs, received approvals, and even started installation in reliance on these rebates, and are stuck paying their contractors an extra $8,000 if our state energy offices cannot draw down funds. As of February 5, that remained the case: the home rebate grants were being held “for agency review.”
• The Solar for All program, administered by EPA and funded by the IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, awarded $7 billion to 60 grantees to install rooftop and community solar energy projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities. These awards—all subject to final grant agreements—support the construction of cheap, resilient power in underserved neighborhoods, and provide particular protection to communities in which wildfire risk regularly causes utilities to de-energize transmission lines. As of February 5, numerous states in the coalition were unable to access their Solar For All grant accounts.
• The Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program, administered by EPA and funded by a $5 billion IRA appropriation, supports states, tribes, and local governments in planning and implementing greenhouse-gas reduction measures. For example, the regional air district covering Los Angeles received a $500 million award, subject to a final grant agreement, to clean up the highly polluting goods movement corridor between the Imperial Valley's logistics hubs and warehouses to the Port of Los Angeles. As of February 5, this grant and other Climate Pollution Reduction Grants remained inaccessible.
• The national air monitoring network and research program under Clean Air Act sections 103 to 105, which has been administered by EPA for the last sixty years to protect communities from dangerous pollution. The IRA appropriated $117.5 million to fund air monitoring grants under this program to increase states’ abilities to detect dangerous pollution like particulate matter (soot) and air toxics, especially in disadvantaged communities. These pollutants create a particular public health emergency in areas recovering from wildfires. As of February 5, air monitoring grants remained inaccessible. 

Attorney General Bonta, along with the attorneys general of New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Illinois, led the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the motions.  

The motion to enforce and motion for a preliminary injunction are available  here

By Miriam Raftery

Image: Wong Kim Ark, whose landmark 1898 lawsuit led to a Supreme Court ruling affirming citizenship for all children born in the U.S., regardless of parents' immigration status. Born in the U.S.,Kim had been denied reentry after traveling abroad. Photo via 1904 immigration document.

January 21, 2025 (Washington D.C.) – Multiple lawsuits have been filed seeking to block an executive order yesterday issued by President Donald Trump which aims to end birthright citizenship. Trump’s order seeks to end citizenship from being issued to children born in the U.S. if the parents are not in the U.S. legally In addition, his order would prohibit citizenship from children born to a mother who is in the U.S. on a temporary and legal basis, such as student, work, or tourist visas, unless the father is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order would take effect in 30 days, on Feb. 19, and apply to children born on or after that date.

The order is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution’s 14^th amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump’s order contends that children of undocumented immigrants as well as children born to mothers here on a temporary basis are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S..

The 14^th amendment was adopted after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the controversial Dred Scott v.Sandford case back in 1857, in which justices held that children of slaves were not entitled to citizenship. After passage of the 14^th Amendment, a later Supreme Court case in 1898 ruled that Wong Kim Ark, an American citizen born in San Francisco, was wrongly denied reentry to the U.S. after a trip abroad and affirmed the Chinese-American man’s right to citizenship.

Today, in separate lawsuits, a coalition led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and numerous states led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, seek to protect rights of all children born in the U.S.

“Denying citizenship to U.S.-born children is not only unconstitutional—it’s also a reckless and ruthless reputation of American values,” says ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero in a statement . The ACLU lawsuit is joined by the Asian Law Caucus, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and Legal Defense Fund. The suit seeks temporary and permanent injunctions to block the executive order from taking effect.

California Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit on behalf of 18 states and the City of San Francisco, seeking an immediate temporary injunction to block implementation while litigation proceeds.  Bonta calls Trump’s order “blatantly unconstitutional and quite frankly, un-American.  As home of Wong Kin Ark, a San Francisco native who fought—successfully—to have his U.S. citizenship recognized, California condemns the President’s attempts to erase history and ignore 125 years of Supreme Court precedent.”

He adds, “If allowed to stand, the order would strip tens of thousands of children born each year of their ability to fully and fairly be a part of American society as rightful citizens, with all the benefits and privileges,” adding that such children would then live under threat of deportation,  also losing their ability to obtain a Social Security number, work lawfully, vote, serve on juries, or run for public office.

Trump’s order would also be costly to states, putting them at risk of losing federal funding for program such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which are conditioned on the citizenship and immigration status of children served.  States would have to foot the bill for modifying the operation and administration of such programs on very short notice if the Feb.19 implementation deadline is not blocked. Such action would cause “irreparable harm to the states and their residents,” Bonta’s statement concludes.