A federal judge found that President Trump broke the law in firing a number of inspectors general early in his term, but the judge found she did not have the power to reinstate them to their jobs.
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes struck a sympathetic tone in the case, which was brought on behalf of eight of the nearly 20 inspectors general Trump has fired.
But she said while Trump violated a law requiring he give 30 days’ notice to Congress before firing any inspector general, the former watchdogs could not show they’d been irreparably harmed.
“President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious. And Plaintiffs raise compelling arguments that the violation must be remedied through reinstatement to their positions,” Reyes wrote, referencing the Inspectors General Act.
However, she said, Trump could simply fire them again by providing the required notice to Congress.
“But under well-established case law that this Court is bound to follow, Plaintiffs must show irreparable harm. And they cannot,” she wrote.
“Even assuming that the IGA comports with Article II, Plaintiffs’ inability to perform their duties for 30 days is not irreparable harm. Moreover, if the IGs were reinstated, the President could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress.”
Just days after taking office, Trump fired some 17 inspectors general, with each getting a short note saying the president had the right to do so under his Article II powers — the portion of the Constitution establishing the presidency.
Reyes’s order resolves a case that has been pending since March, when the inspectors general asked the court to block their firings.
“The Court recognizes Plaintiffs’ exceptional service as IGs, marked by decades of distinguished leadership across multiple administrations. They sacrificed much to take on the role of an IG and its many demands—no doubt including substantial time away from family and far larger paychecks available in the private sector,” she wrote.
“They deserved better from their government. They still do. Unfortunately, this Court cannot provide Plaintiffs more.”
While Reyes denied the request for an injunction, she did not yet rule on another request from the fired inspectors general — whether to give them back pay, instead ordering additional briefings on the subject.
At another turn, she summarized the argument from the inspectors general, who wrote that it was “decidedly wrong and decidedly contrary to the public interest” to let protections for those who guard against waste, fraud and abuse be so easily flouted.
“Yes, agreed,” Reyes wrote.
Want more insights? Join Working Title - our career elevating newsletter and get the future of work delivered weekly.
