On August 19, 2025, the legal battle over the Trump administration’s push to make it easier to fire federal employees during their probationary period reached a pivotal moment in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel heard arguments in a union-backed lawsuit that seeks to reverse the administration’s firings of probationary federal workers, but the panel’s skeptical tone suggested a tough road ahead for the plaintiffs—and possibly another legal win for former President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal workforce.
At the heart of the case is an April 2025 executive order from Trump that fundamentally changed how federal agencies handle probationary employees. Under the new directive, agencies must certify that a probationary worker "advances the public interest" before confirming them as a full-time hire. The order, according to Bloomberg Law, was part of a broader campaign to empower supervisors to remove new hires more easily and, as critics allege, to purge federal workers seen as obstacles to Trump’s agenda.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the primary union representing federal workers, quickly challenged the policy. In a lawsuit named AFGE v. Office of Personnel Management, 9th Cir., 25-1677, the union argues that the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) overstepped its authority by directing agencies to fire probationary employees. AFGE contends that this move undermines job security and due process for federal workers, especially those who have not yet reached full employment status.
But as the Ninth Circuit panel convened in San Francisco, the judges seemed to question the very foundation of the union’s case. According to Bloomberg Law, Judge Lawrence VanDyke remarked, "There’s a problem here. That does seem to be circumventing an agency process, but it’s doing it grabbing ahold of an agency, but that agency never fired anybody." He continued, "The whole thing is, like, very confusing to me as to why they couldn’t just go after the agencies." His comments echoed a broader skepticism about whether the union had chosen the proper defendant—OPM—instead of the individual agencies that actually terminated the employees.
This procedural wrinkle could prove decisive. Trump’s attorneys argued vigorously that federal unions lack standing to challenge the firings in court, insisting that the government has broad authority over probationary workers. They further contended that the lower court never had jurisdiction in the first place, since personnel decisions involving federal employees are supposed to be funneled through the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). Both bodies were established to handle precisely these sorts of employment disputes, and the administration believes they are the proper venue for such challenges.
However, the current composition of these panels is itself a point of contention. The FLRA, with only two members, is at a partisan deadlock, while the MSPB consists of a single Republican appointee. Critics argue that this setup tilts the playing field in favor of the administration, making it harder for unions and employees to get a fair hearing. Still, as the government’s lawyers pointed out, these agencies lack the authority to make sweeping constitutional judgments, which means the dispute could end up in federal court anyway—albeit after a detour through administrative channels.
This isn’t the first time the Ninth Circuit has weighed in on Trump’s workforce policies. Just last month, the court halted an order from Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court for the Northern District of California that would have required the administration to turn over sealed copies of its layoff plans. The Ninth Circuit also allowed the administration to scrap collective bargaining agreements with federal worker unions, pausing a lower court order that had kept those agreements in place. According to Bloomberg Law, these rulings have bolstered the administration’s campaign to exert greater control over federal employment practices.
For the union and its supporters, the stakes are high. The Supreme Court’s July 2025 decision to let the administration continue with sweeping layoffs while a separate lawsuit over non-probationary employees proceeds has already created a climate of uncertainty and anxiety among federal workers. Many fear that the new rules will lead to arbitrary firings and undermine the professionalism and independence of the civil service.
AFGE’s case centers on the argument that the OPM’s directive goes beyond its statutory authority. The union maintains that only individual agencies have the power to make employment decisions about their own staff, and that OPM’s involvement represents an unconstitutional overreach. In court, both sides debated the scope of OPM’s role, with the judges pressing for clarity on whether OPM should even be a defendant in the case. This line of questioning suggests that the union may have to overcome significant procedural hurdles before the substance of its claims can be addressed.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has framed its actions as necessary reforms to increase accountability in government. Supporters of the executive order argue that the ability to remove underperforming probationary employees quickly is essential for effective management and for ensuring that federal agencies serve the public interest. They point to longstanding frustrations with what they see as cumbersome rules that make it nearly impossible to dismiss ineffective workers, even during their probationary period.
Opponents, however, warn that these changes will have a chilling effect on the federal workforce. They argue that the new certification requirement—mandating that agencies affirm a probationary worker "advances the public interest"—is vague and open to abuse. Some fear it could be used to target employees for political or ideological reasons, rather than objective performance criteria. The ongoing litigation has left many probationary employees in limbo, unsure of their job security as the courts hash out the details.
As the legal wrangling continues, the broader implications for the federal workforce remain unclear. If the Ninth Circuit sides with the administration, it could pave the way for even more sweeping changes to civil service protections. If the union prevails, it could set important limits on executive authority and reaffirm the role of due process in federal employment.
For now, though, the case of AFGE v. Office of Personnel Management stands as a microcosm of the larger struggle over the future of the federal bureaucracy. With both sides digging in for a protracted fight, the outcome could have lasting consequences for how the government hires, fires, and manages its employees. As the judges deliberate, federal workers across the country are watching closely, knowing that the next ruling could reshape their professional lives for years to come.
