San Francisco (CNN) — A federal judge has ordered half a dozen federal agencies to “immediately” reinstate probationary employees fired last month as part of the Trump administration’s effort to rapidly shrink the federal workforce, calling the effort a “sham.”

The preliminary injunction issued from the bench Thursday by US District Judge William Alsup requires the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury to rehire the employees. The judge said that he might extend the order to cover other federal agencies at a later time.

Alsup, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, said he was making the ruling because he believes the Office of Personnel Management unlawfully directed the agencies earlier this year to lay off the probationary employees, who generally have been on the job for less than a year.

“The court finds that Office of Personnel Management did direct all agencies to terminate probationary employees with the exception of mission critical employees,” he said, rejecting arguments from the Justice Department that OPM merely issued “guidance” to the agencies that then led to the firings.

The judge said the order is effective immediately: “This is the order and it counts.”

The Justice Department indicated Thursday that it will appeal the ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge’s ruling was hailed by Santa Clara County, which joined 43 other local governments and local government officials in filing an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in the case.

“We had 44 local governments and officials speak out in unison against the federal government’s unlawful attempt to decimate the federal workforce,” Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said in a statement. “We are thrilled to see that the court has taken action to protect federal employees and the critical role they play assisting local governments in carrying out their mission to care for residents most in need.”

The ruling came in a case brought by labor unions and others challenging OPM’s role in the firings, which affected thousands of employees and sent shockwaves through various federal agencies, some of which later rehired some of the workers.

Alsup was highly critical of the administration’s justification for firing the employees. OPM had provided agencies with a template termination letter that cited the employee’s “performance” as the reason they were being let go. But the judge said that rationale was the government’s attempt to end-run federal law setting up specific rules for reducing the federal workforce.

“The reason that OPM wanted to put this based on performance was at least in part in my judgment a gimmick to avoid the Reductions in Force Act,” the judge said. “Because the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance.”

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he added. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”

Federal probationary employees have typically been in their positions for one year, but some jobs have two-year probationary periods. The employees may be new to the federal workforce, but they also could have been recently promoted or shifted to a different agency.

Alsup’s ruling is one of the most significant yet in cases testing the administration’s authority to quickly reduce the number of federal employees – a key priority that has been central to the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency. A similar case brought by Democratic state attorneys general is pending in Maryland.

The White House called the ruling “absurd and unconstitutional.”

“A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch. The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch – singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President’s agenda,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement posted on X by another White House aide.

“If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for President themselves,” Leavitt said.

‘I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth’

The decision came after Alsup unloaded on the Justice Department for not making the acting head of the Office of Personnel Management available to testify about the Trump administration’s decision to fire scores of probationary employees.

He had ordered acting OPM Director Charles Ezell to testify during Thursday’s hearing, where he would likely face tough questions from attorneys representing the labor unions that are challenging his agency’s role in the firings.

But the Justice Department refused to make him available and instead withdrew a declaration Ezell submitted last month that had served as the government’s only evidence in the case.

“You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination will reveal the truth,” Alsup told DOJ attorney Kelsey Helland. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”

Alsup told the DOJ attorney Thursday: “You can’t just say, ‘here’s a declaration, you have to accept it without question’ when there is a question.”

“You’re not helping me get at the truth. You’re giving me press releases – sham documents,” the judge said, referring to documents submitted by the DOJ to the court that they say shows how the agencies were making the termination decisions themselves.

The declaration from Ezell said that OPM did not “direct” other agencies to terminate probationary employees — the central issue in the case brought by labor unions and others.

Helland pushed back strongly on the judge’s assertion, and argued during the hearing that the agency heads had sought to cull their workforce on their own, not at the direction of OPM.

“I respectfully disagree that we have submitted false evidence,” he said at one point, adding later: “Decisions on these employment actions were made by these agencies and were fully endorsed by their political leadership.”

The Trump administration has been targeting probationary workers because they have fewer job protections and can be dismissed more easily. While they generally cannot appeal their termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, they can if the action stemmed from “partisan political reasons” or “marriage status.” Also, they are protected from prohibited personnel practices.

Part of Thursday’s hearing concerned whether the employees at issue in the case have the option of appealing their firing to the MSPB, something Alsup had initially understood was possible. But the judge said he wanted the parties to submit more written legal arguments on the issue before he decides how to factor it into his ruling.

Related Articles

California Supreme Court takes up rape conviction reversal for ex-49er Dana Stubblefield

Federal judge appears skeptical Trump administration’s probationary firings were for performance

Daly City man sentenced to 15 years to life for killing estranged wife with son in other room

Bay Area Filipino community reacts to arrest of ex-President Rodrigo Duterte

Fate of ex-Antioch K9 cop accused of plotting to brutalize residents now in jury’s hands

One former probationary employee who was fired last month from the IRS, an agency within the Treasury Department, told CNN that he and his colleagues were thrilled with the ruling.

“Everyone on the group chat is celebrating,” the former IRS employee said, referring to a text chat where his former colleagues have been consoling each other in recent weeks.

Staff writer Jason Green contributed to this report. CNN’s Tami Luhby, Tierney Sneed, Samantha Waldenberg and Marshall Cohen also contributed to this report.

The-CNN-Wire

& © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.