On Wednesday, a federal appeals court turned down the Trump administration’s request to halt a previous court decision that mandates government agencies to rehire numerous employees dismissed the previous month.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, rejected the administration’s effort to suspend US District Judge William Alsup’s March 13 preliminary injunction. This directive required the departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Treasury to promptly reinstate all probationary employees who were let go around February 13.

Judges Barry Silverman and Ana de Alba, appointed by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden respectively, supported maintaining Alsup’s injunction, whereas Judge Bridget Bade, appointed by President Trump, expressed disagreement.

“Appellants have demonstrated neither that they are sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits of this appeal nor that they will suffer irreparable harm from complying with the preliminary injunction,” read the majority opinion. 

Silberman and de Alba further argued that the Trump administration did not demonstrate “a likelihood that the district court clearly erred in finding that the six agencies were directed by the United States Office of Personnel Management to fire probationary employees” in violation of federal laws that dictate so-called “Reduction in Force” procedures. 

Meanwhile, the judges said the plaintiffs in the case – labor unions for federal workers – “provided evidence of various concrete injuries, and the district court carefully analyzed that evidence and determined that it was sufficient.” 

In dissent, Bade indicated that the unions “have not met their burden of showing that they have standing, and thus the government is likely to prevail on the merits because the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter the preliminary injunction.” 

The Trump-appointee also argued that the lower court ruling may not actually “redress” the alleged harms of plaintiffs. 

“Reinstating the terminated employees does not mean that they will return to the same positions and assignments, or that the agencies will provide the services that the organizational plaintiffs desire,” Bade wrote.”It is just as likely that the various agencies will reassign these employees to new positions, or assign them different tasks, or prioritize their mission and services in a manner that does not result in increased services to the organizational plaintiffs, or even lawfully terminate the employees.” 

“Further, it is not clear the district court has the authority to direct lawful personnel management decisions within the agencies,” she added.

The White House slammed Alsup’s initial ruling, arguing that the San Francisco-based judge was 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 earlier this month.

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

Justice Department lawyers had argued that the six agencies themselves, and not the Office of Personnel Management, made the firing decisions – which affected federal employees who had been on the job for less than a year – in an effort to comply with the Trump administration’s goal of shrinking the size of government.