DOJ Urges Ninth Circuit to Overturn Record-Correction Order for 25,000 Fired Probationary Employees

DOJ Urges Ninth Circuit to Overturn Record-Correction Order for 25,000 Fired Probationary Employees

On Friday, August 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the federal government’s appeal of a landmark district court order requiring agencies to correct the employment records of approximately 25,000 probationary federal employees who were terminated en masse by the Trump administration in February 2025.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) urged a three-judge panel to vacate Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s September 2025 summary judgment order. The government's core argument is that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, asserting that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 completely bars federal courts from reviewing such personnel actions.¹

Background: The 2025 Mass Firings

The legal battle began in February 2025, when the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a directive ordering federal agencies to terminate all probationary employees across six departments (Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs). The administration claimed the firings were based on poor job performance, which unions and advocates quickly challenged as a "sham" pretext.²

Judge Alsup initially ordered the immediate reinstatement of the terminated workers, finding that OPM had exceeded its statutory authority by ordering—rather than merely advising—agencies on hiring and firing. Although the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the reinstatement order, Judge Alsup ruled in September 2025 that the OPM-directed mass terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Because "too much water has now passed under the bridge" to order reinstatements, Judge Alsup instead issued a narrowed corrective order. He instructed federal agencies to update the official personnel files of the terminated employees to state that their firings were not based on performance or conduct, and to issue corrective notices to the affected workers.

The Jurisdictional Battle at the Ninth Circuit

During the August 28, 2026 appellate hearing, DOJ attorney Joshua Koppel argued that the district court had no authority to issue the record-correction order. The government contends that under the CSRA, any claim arising from a "federal personnel action"—even those involving probationary employees—must be channeled exclusively through administrative bodies like the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).

Because the CSRA intentionally provides probationary employees with fewer procedural rights than tenured civil servants, the DOJ argues that Congress meant to exclude them from seeking remedy in federal district courts entirely.

U.S. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen closely questioned the government on this sweeping jurisdictional theory, asking whether the DOJ’s position meant that federal employee unions and other interested parties are completely shut out from seeking declaratory judgment or prospective injunctive relief in federal court when the executive branch exceeds its authority. Koppel affirmed that this is precisely what the CSRA’s statutory scheme requires.

Broader Civil Service Implications

The Ninth Circuit's forthcoming ruling will have major implications for the balance of power in federal personnel management:

• If the government wins: The ruling will establish that federal courts cannot review broad executive-branch directives targeting probationary workers, cementing the administrative MSPB/FLRA channels as the exclusive, non-judicial forums for civil service disputes. This would insulate future mass terminations of probationary or non-tenured staff from federal court injunctions.
• If the unions win: The ruling will affirm that federal courts retain a vital role under the APA to review and halt broad, illegal agency-wide directives, ensuring that the executive branch cannot use OPM to bypass merit system protections.