If the IGs were reinstated, the President could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress, the judge wrote. Image: JHVEPhoto/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffA federal judge has found that the widescale firings of agency inspectors general early in the Trump administration violated a law requiring advance notice to Congress of such an intent, although the judge did not order that the fired IGs be returned to office.
The court denied a request for reinstatement by eight of the nearly 20 IGs who were fired immediately in brief emails from the White House without warning and without explanation either to them or to Congress.
They argued that the firings violated the 2022 Inspector General Act, which requires a President to provide a 30-day notice with a “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” and allows for removal during that period only on a determination that the individual “poses a threat” to the agency
The administration argued in response that the law violates a President’s authority to manage the executive branch—an argument also raised in separate cases that challenge the firings of many other senior agency officials despite a separate law providing protections to them.
“President Trump violated the IGA. That much is obvious,” District Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. However, even assuming the law does not violate a President’s authority, they must show “irreparable harm” to merit a court order reinstating them “and they cannot,” she wrote.
The ruling said that the IGs’ “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.”
In denying an injunction, the court further delayed ruling on other issues pending a decision in a case the U.S. Supreme Court recently accepted that “may bear on the issues presented here.”
The decision added: “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. They deserved better from their government. They still do.”
Nearly 10,000 Federal Offices Don’t Meet Usage Standards
OPM Plan on Employee Ratings Asking for Abuse, Says Senior House Democrat
OK, FERS and TSP, but What About Social Security Retirement Income?
Conversions to Schedule P/C Pending; Acknowledgement Form Draws Attention
Senate Passes DHS Funding Deal, but Stalls in House; Trump Signs Order to Pay TSA Personnel
See also,
Calculating Service Credit for Sick Leave At Retirement
FERS Supplement vs The 10% Pension Bonus
How Your FERS, Social Security and TSP Payments Get Taxed
