In a blow to those attempting to undermine Donald Trump’s authority as the nation’s chief executive, a federal judge just issued a key ruling in a case addressing the administration’s efforts to reshape the bureaucracy in D.C.

As the Associated Press reports, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes declined to reinstate a group of eight inspectors general fired at Trump’s direction at the start of his second term in office.

Fired IGs file suit

The dispute at hand began when the plaintiffs in the case were among 17 inspectors general dismissed by Trump on Jan. 24 of this year, a move that the administration attributed to “changing priorities.”

Asked at the time to explain the firings, Trump stated that they were “a very common thing to do” and attempted to dismiss concerns that he intended to put administration loyalists in their places.

“We’ll put people in there that will be very good,” the president said, as Politico reported.

The group of eight plaintiffs in the case overseen by Reyes sued, contending that the firings were illegal because Trump did not provide the statutorily-mandated 30-day notice or a “substantive, case-specific rationale” for any of the dismissals.

In response, government attorneys argued that the president has the power to remove inspectors general “without any showing of cause” and need not wait 30 days after notice has been provided to Congress.

Reyes weighs in

Though seemingly unconvinced as to the overall propriety of the firings, Judge Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, ruled that she lacked the authority to reinstate the plaintiffs to their prior positions, as The Hill explains.

Specifically, Reyes noted her belief that Trump did, in fact, violate the 30-day notice requirement of the Inspector General Act (IGA), but followed up with the observation that the plaintiffs could not make the required showing of irreparable harm.

“President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious,” Reyes wrote. “And plaintiffs raise compelling arguments that the violation must be remedied through reinstatement to their positions.”

However, Reyes then explained, the president could simply fire them all once again by giving the necessary notice to Congress.

“Even assuming that the IGA comports with Article II, plaintiffs’ inability to perform their duties for 30 days is not irreparable harm,” Reyes wrote, later adding that the fired IGs “deserved better from the government. They still do. Unfortunately, this Court cannot provide Plaintiffs more.”

Compensation question remains

Despite rejecting the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement, Reyes has not yet ruled on whether the dismissed inspectors general may be entitled to back pay.

While key issues in the case remain open questions, Reyes’ determination that reinstatement is currently not warranted is a clear win for Trump in his continued quest to exercise his executive authority over the federal bureaucracy.