In one of several recent decisions that show the Supreme Court toeing a line to try to keep from inciting Trump's wrath, the court ruled Tuesday 7-2, on a narrow legal basis, to block an order from an SF-based federal judge to reinstate fired probationary workers at six federal agencies.

The brief decision, which did not break perfectly along ideological lines, simply said that the nine nonprofit groups that had brought the suit against the federal government did not have standing to sue on behalf of the workers — leaving open the possibility that workers' unions or the workers themselves could pursue a case.

The decision came following an emergency appeal from the Trump administration of a March 13 ruling from US District Judge William Alsup that ordered six federal agencies to reinstate around 16,000 probationary workers who had been summarily fired under Elon Musk's DOGE staffing cuts. Alsup said in his ruling that the firings had clearly been directed by the White House Office of Personnel Management, which does not have authority to direct firings at these agencies.

As the New York Times' court watcher Adam Liptak notes, "The practical consequences of the [Supreme Court's] ruling may be limited, as another trial judge’s ruling requiring the reinstatement of many of the same workers remains in place."

Liptak refers to a different case brought by 19 states in federal court in Maryland, where a judge there has similarly issued a restraining order stopping the firings.

The federal agencies responded last month by putting the workers on administrative leave and restoring their pay, but they so far have not been returned to offices. The Fourth Circuit court of appeals is expected to rule soon on an emergency stay request from the Trump administration relating to this case.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on the standing issue, with Justice Elena Kagan joining the conservatives in the majority, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.  The court has not ruled on the merits of the case.

The groups who brought the suit, and unions representing federal workers who were a party to it, issued a statement today saying the SCOTUS decision is "deeply disappointing but… only a momentary pause in our efforts to enforce [Judge Alsup’s] orders and hold the federal government accountable."

The groups added, per the Chronicle, "There is no doubt that thousands of public service employees were unlawfully fired in an effort to cripple federal agencies and their crucial programs that serve millions of Americans every day. Despite this setback, our coalition remains unwavering in fighting for these workers who were wronged by the administration, and in protecting the freedoms of the American people."

When he issued his decision last month, Judge Alsup said during a hearing, "It is a sad, 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. That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to avoid statutory requirements."

Since that case was decided, it appears the administration has been trying to be more careful about who directs the layoffs of federal workers, and how the layoffs are framed. A recent mass-firing at the National Institutes of Health and at the CDC was directed from within the agencies, according to DOGE's Acting Administrator Amy Gleason.

As the Chronicle reports today, Gleason was careful to say, "Each agency has built its own internal Doge team per the executive order. Those employees work closely with senior leaders, but the decisions are made by agency leadership themselves. Agency heads and their teams are the only ones who can hire or fire people."

The latter statement comes almost directly out of Alsup's order.

Previously: SF Federal Judge Orders Rehiring of Probationary Workers at Six Federal Agencies, Calling Firings 'a Sham'

Photo: Jackie Hope