In an effort to save taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration acted last month to lay off thousands of probationary government workers.

However, a federal judge threw out the move late last week, ruling that the laid off individuals must be rehired. 

Order from Clinton-appointed judge applies to multiple agencies

According to The Hill, that decision came this past Thursday from U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who was nominated by then President Bill Clinton in 1999.

It applied to laid off probationary employees at the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury.

#BREAKING: Federal judge rules Trump must reinstate many fired federal employeeshttps://t.co/MPpYDgSEnJ

— The Hill (@thehill) March 13, 2025

The Hill noted that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt immediately released a statement which pledged that the administration would "immediately fight" against Alsup's "absurd and unconstitutional" order.

Ninth Circuit refuses request to immediately block Alsup's decision

However, the website reported on Monday that a three-judge panel with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined a White House request to immediately block Thursday's ruling.

"Given that the district court found that the employees were wrongfully terminated and ordered an immediate return to the status quo ante, an administrative stay of the district court’s order would not preserve the status quo," the court wrote in its majority opinion.

It went on to argue that granting the administration's request "would do just the opposite" as "it would disrupt the status quo and turn it on its head."

However, Trump-appointed Judge Bridget Bade wrote a dissent in which she disagreed with the reasoning of her two Democratic colleagues.

Judge highlights risks of "potential whiplash effect" if worker are rehired

Bade pointed to a "potential whiplash effect" which might be seen should the newly rehired employees subsequently be laid off again if Alsup's is subsequently overturned.

"Plaintiffs do not contest these assertions," she pointed out. "They argue that government services upon which they and their organizational members rely have been thrown into chaos by the terminations and that they will continue to be injured by the government’s inability to render services."

"But Plaintiffs offer no reason to believe that immediate offers of reinstatement would cure these harms," the federal judge continued.

"Instead, the administrative undertaking of immediately reinstating potentially thousands of employees would likely draw (already depleted) agency resources away from their designated service functions," she went on to add.