A federal judge has rejected a bid by eight former inspectors general to regain their jobs after being abruptly dismissed by the Trump administration earlier this year.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled Wednesday that while President Donald Trump likely breached federal law in how the watchdogs were removed, the plaintiffs had not shown the kind of irreparable harm needed to justify reinstatement while their lawsuit proceeds.
The eight officials were part of a larger group of 17 inspectors general fired on January 24. Each dismissal came via the same two-sentence email from the White House citing only “changing priorities.” Nearly every Cabinet-level agency lost its watchdog in the sweep.
Lawyers for the inspectors general argued the dismissals violated the Inspector General Act, which requires the White House to give Congress 30 days’ notice and provide a specific justification for removals. Justice Department attorneys countered that the president has authority to dismiss inspectors general “without any showing of cause” and that the law does not restrict when such removals can take effect.
READ ALSO: Hundreds of federal employees rehired after DOGE layoffs under Trump
Reyes acknowledged that even if she ordered their reinstatement, Trump could lawfully remove them again after 30 days with proper notice. She concluded that the plaintiffs could seek compensation if they ultimately win their case, but for now, their terminations remain in force, AP reported.
Inspectors general, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serve as internal watchdogs for federal agencies, investigating fraud, abuse and waste. Attorneys for the plaintiffs stressed their value, noting that oversight work in 2023 alone saved more than $90 billion for taxpayers.
In her opinion, Reyes praised the plaintiffs’ careers, writing: “They deserved better from their government. They still do. Unfortunately, this Court cannot provide Plaintiffs more.”
The lawsuit involves former inspectors general from the Small Business Administration and the Departments of Defense, State, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Education and Labor. Their attorneys warned that the mass firings leave major federal agencies vulnerable: “Defendants’ actions, moreover, telegraph to the public that many of the largest federal agencies now lack the institutional mechanisms to detect and stop fraud and abuse.”
READ ALSO: Lawyer claims Ghana sent back 11 U.S.-deported migrants despite risk concerns
The Justice Department maintains that the president’s removal authority is clear. “The congressional notice provision is in a separate sentence from the removal authorization provision, with no grammatical connection between them,” government lawyers wrote.
During a March hearing, Reyes told the plaintiffs she did not yet know how she would rule, but commended them for “standing up and saying this is not acceptable.” In Wednesday’s decision, she reiterated that she believed the firings broke the law, while raising a broader constitutional question about whether Congress can limit a president’s removal powers.
“This is a close call under the best of circumstances,” she wrote, noting that inspectors general “do not fit cleanly” into categories of either inferior officers with limited duties or principal officers with independent power.
Reyes, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, has previously presided over cases involving Trump’s executive actions, including one that blocked the administration’s attempt to bar transgender people from military service.
READ ALSO: Judge orders Trump administration to restore $500M in UCLA research grants
