On January 9, 2024, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser will speak at the Colorado Bar Association office in Denver.
A group of 20 attorneys general is suing the Trump administration for mass layoffs of probationary federal employees, which they say are illegal and causing irreparable harm to their states.
The Democratic Colorado attorney general, Phil Weiser, joined the lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court of Maryland on Thursday.
“These mass firings aren’t about performance—they’re about politics and ideology,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat who also filed the suit, said in a written statement late Thursday. “The Trump administration’s actions are reckless and illegal.”
The attorneys general are urging the federal court to rule that the mass firings were illegal, reinstate the employees, prohibit similar terminations in the future, and identify all impacted employees.
As the Trump administration works to dismantle portions of the federal government, overstepping the Oval Office’s constitutional authority by cutting funding allocated by Congress, the only meaningful opposition has come in the form of lawsuits challenging the administration’s decisions.
Weiser has joined forces with other Democratic attorneys general to challenge the Trump administration’s actions in at least half a dozen additional lawsuits.
So far, judges have ordered the administration to temporarily halt or reverse its actions in some cases, while siding with President Donald Trump in others.
In this lawsuit, the AGs argue that the firing of approximately 24,000 probationary government employees who worked for various federal departments violated laws and regulations governing reductions in force, or RIFs, and thus is illegal.
The Office of Personnel Management, which ordered the probationary employees’ firings, outlines the rules and regulations governing RIFs, or the termination of federal employees due to restructuring or downsizing rather than performance issues.
“This campaign has inflicted immense harms on tens of thousands of probationary employees and their families,” James Handley, assistant Maryland attorney general, wrote in the lawsuit. “It has rendered them jobless without providing any advance notice, which would have allowed them to seek alternative employment or even budget for the loss of income.
As a result, many affected employees and their families are struggling to make ends meet, including paying rent, buying groceries, and caring for loved ones.
Employees terminated through a RIF must be notified in writing at least 60 days before the end of their employment, offered other open jobs within the government, and given preference to retain their positions or be transferred, according to federal laws and regulations.
Employee notices must include information on how to apply for unemployment benefits and social services, while state notices must include the number of employees terminated, their location, and the date of their last day of employment.
When at least 50 employees in the same geographical area are fired simultaneously as a result of a RIF, federal law requires notification of the state or district government where those employees worked.
However, the Trump administration did none of that, firing thousands of probationary federal employees — those who had been in their positions for one or two years — with no prior notice.
The attorneys general acknowledged that they do not know the exact number of federal probationary employees fired so far, but they estimate that at least 6,000 were terminated from the IRS, 2,000 from the Department of Agriculture, 2,400 from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 3,400 from the Forest Service, to name a few of the agencies affected.
The AGs challenging the mass layoffs claim that their state governments are irreparably harmed by the process because federal law requires them to provide support for workers subject to mass layoffs through programs such as job placement, training, and unemployment benefit administration.
The RIF regulations, which were approved by Congress, are intended to assist employees and state agencies in preparing for job losses. Without advance notice, employees do not have time to look for new jobs, and state agencies are unable to prepare for an influx of workers in need of assistance.
The attorneys general argued that this could have a significant impact on regional economies if a large number of employees are fired at the same time.
At the time the lawsuit was filed, the attorneys general stated that their employment agencies had received no notice of the firings, including the ability to identify who was terminated and where they were located.
“Because of Defendants’ failure to adhere to the RIF notice procedures, many Plaintiff States have had to scramble and expend additional resources to identify even which agencies have conducted layoffs and which affected employees require support,” according to Handley.
Some federal departments, such as the Department of Treasury, directed agencies under their supervision to fire probationary employees “based on performance.”
If the thousands of federal employees fired in the first six weeks of Trump’s second term were fired for poor performance, the government would not have to comply with the RIF requirements.
However, federal employees who are fired for performance issues must be informed in writing about the specifics of their underperformance, which the Trump administration did not provide.
“Many of the agencies had already determined that their probationary employees were well qualified and performing their jobs well but were ordered to terminate them ‘based on performance’ anyway,” wrote Handley.
Rather than providing specifics of alleged poor job performance, many of the employees received termination notices via form letters and emails with errors, “and in many instances failed to include even the employee’s name or job title.”
The mass layoffs have already had an impact on state governments, putting a strain on their unemployment insurance and job assistance programs, resulting in longer wait times for others who have recently applied for benefits, according to the attorneys general.
Since Jan. 21, the day Trump took office, Maryland has received unemployment benefit applications from over 800 former federal employees, compared to 189 during the same period last year.
If the federal government claims those employees were fired for poor performance, or if the employee and employer disagree on the reason for termination, the state is required to conduct an investigation, which costs money and staff time.
“Many Plaintiff States anticipate a significant increase in these disputes given the Defendants’ chaotic and conflicting messaging around the reasons for terminating probationary employees,” Handley wrote in an email.
Several states have spent significant time and money developing websites to inform fired federal employees about resources available to them.
Typically, state unemployment agencies would contact terminated employees directly; however, because the federal government did not provide notices, many states have no idea who those employees are.
The AGs also claim that the layoffs will result in a significant drop in state income taxes collected, amounting to millions of dollars, particularly in Maryland, which is home to approximately 250,000 federal employees.
The attorneys general also claim that the abrupt termination of federal employees who performed critical state functions has harmed the states. Many of them were employed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but they also worked for tribal and local health agencies to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases.
“The arbitrariness of Defendants’ actions and the indiscriminate nature of the terminations is underscored by the fact that Defendants have had to reverse the firings of individuals fulfilling certain critical functions, such as protecting nuclear weapons and addressing a significant public health threat,” the judge wrote.
In addition to Colorado, Arizona, and Maryland, attorneys general from Minnesota, the District of Columbia, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the suit.
