1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t…

U.S. Supreme Court

Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t have standing, Supreme Court says while staying rehiring order

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 1:31 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a federal judge’s preliminary injunction that required the federal government to rehire as many as 16,000 fired probationary employees.

In its April 8 order, the Supreme Court said the injunction entered by Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup of the Northern District of California was based solely on claims by nine nonprofit plaintiffs. But those groups did not have standing, the Supreme Court said.

The injunction was not based on claims by other plaintiffs in the lawsuit before Alsup. Alsup didn’t rule on claims by the labor union plaintiffs because he found that he probably didn’t have the power to hear them, according to SCOTUSblog.

The Supreme Court stay will remain in place throughout the litigation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

SCOTUSblog, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Politico are among the publications with coverage.

According to Politico, “the decision’s ultimate impact is murky because another federal judge has issued a separate order reinstating many of the same probationary workers.”

Alsup had granted the preliminary injunction in a March 13 ruling from the bench, he said in a March 14 memorandum opinion. He ordered the employees’ reinstatement based on a finding that the Office of Personnel Management had no authority to fire employees of another agency. That authority belongs to each agency, he said.

Alsup’s injunction reinstated probationary workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury, according to a March 13 press release.

The government has contended that the firings can only be contested by individual employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The case is Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees.

See also:

Judge orders Trump officials to offer jobs back to fired probationary workers

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Jenner & Block’s rehiring of lead Mueller…

Law Firms

Jenner & Block’s rehiring of lead Mueller prosecutor cited in executive order targeting firm

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2025, 9:16 am CDT

Jenner & Block has become the fourth BigLaw firm targeted by President Donald Trump in a punitive executive order.

The March 25 order calls for suspension of security clearances held by people at Jenner & Block, limits access to government buildings by Jenner & Block employees, seeks termination of its clients’ government contracts, and bars the federal government from hiring Jenner & Block employees absent a waiver.

Jenner & Block “is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan ‘lawfare’ and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States,” the order declares.

The order criticizes the firm’s diversity practices, its representation in cases involving transgender and immigration issues, and its rehiring of the lead prosecutor working with former special counsel Robert Mueller.

A Jenner & Block spokesperson provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “Jenner & Block has had a long history representing clients, paid and pro bono, in their most difficult matters since 1914. Today, we have been named in an executive order similar to one which has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court. We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity and expertise that has defined our firm for more than 100 years and will pursue all appropriate remedies.”

Publications with coverage of the order include Law.com (here and here) and Reuters.

The order criticizes Jenner & Block’s April 2020 rehiring of Andrew Weissmann. He is the former lead prosecutor for what the order calls the “entirely unjustified” investigation by Mueller, who examined coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Weissmann left Jenner & Block in 2021 and is currently listed as a professor at the New York University School of Law.

Mueller’s investigation found that Trump did not collude with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election and found insufficient evidence to establish that Trump obstructed the special counsel probe.

The order also said Jenner & Block “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends.” The order appeared to criticize the firm’s involvement in lawsuits against the administration seeking to restore funding for gender-affirming medical care and seeking to allow immigrants to remain in the United States while asylum claims are pending.

Jenner & Block is also accused in the order of using race-based targets in a way that discriminates against its employees.

Three other firms previously targeted in Trump’s executive orders are Covington & Burling; Perkins Coie; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Perkins Coie responded with a suit, while Paul Weiss reached an agreement with Trump that led to lifting of the order. The agreement requires Paul Weiss to dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services to support Trump administration initiatives, including projects that include veterans assistance, fairness in the justice system and a presidential task force on antisemitism.

A federal judge who entered a temporary restraining order in the Perkins Coie challenge said the firm was likely to succeed on its First Amendment and due process claims.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.