The Ninth Circuit yesterday upheld a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in a case challenging the Trump Administration's summary removal of probationary employees at several agencies.
Just a couple days prior, the Administration asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction. That request is still pending.
All this means that the district court injunction remains effective, unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. That injunction requires covered agencies to offer reinstatement to terminated probationary employees and to advise them that their removal was deemed unlawful by the district court.
The case, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States Office of Personnel Management, arose when organizations and unions sued to halt and reverse the Administration's summary removal of probationary employees at certain agencies. The district court issued a TRO then a preliminary injunction, ordering the agencies to reinstate the employees and advise them that the court deemed their removal illegal. In issuing the injunction, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that OPM exceeded its authority in ordering the removals. (OPM has statutory authority over its own employees, but it doesn't have authority to order other agencies to remove their employees.)
The Administration asked the Ninth Circuit to stay the injunction pending further litigation. The Ninth Circuit declined, however, concluding that the Administration didn't demonstrate that it was likely to succeed in showing that none of the organizational plaintiffs had standing or that the claims belonged at the Merit Systems Protection Board (and not in federal court). It also said that the Administration didn't show that the district court clearly erred in finding that OPM directed the agencies to fire the employees.
Before the Ninth Circuit ruled, the Administration also asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction. That request is still pending.
Back in the district court, the plaintiffs have now argued that the Administration isn't complying with the injunction. If the defendants continue to defy the court, the plaintiffs also asked the court to hold them in civil contempt.