Trump Administration’s Mass Firings of Probationary Employees Ruled Unlawful, But Relief for Affected Workers Like Jessie Beck Remains Limited

After a six-month wait, Jessie Beck, a former fisheries biologist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), received news that her dismissal from the federal government was deemed unlawful in a court ruling. However, the judge did not order reinstatement due to the Supreme Court’s stance on executive branch powers and the passage of time since the terminations occurred.

On September 12, U.S. District Judge William Alsup made his final decision in a case challenging the mass dismissals of probationary employees by the Trump administration, most of whom were new hires. In a detailed 38-page order, Alsup stated that these terminations, dating back to February, were illegal. Yet, he refrained from mandating rehiring due to expectations that the Supreme Court would overturn such relief in light of its recent decisions on similar matters and the lapse of time since the employees’ departures.

Many affected employees, including Beck, dispute this assertion. They insist they would readily return to their positions if given the opportunity. Beck shared her frustration, stating that despite finding malfeasance in the government’s actions, the limited relief offered by Alsup was unsatisfactory.

“I believe Judge Alsup had his hands tied from the outset,” Beck said. “It seems like the judicial process is being undermined by a higher court.”

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has indicated that the Constitution grants extensive powers to the president regarding the executive branch, including the right to hire and fire as they see fit, despite federal laws protecting civil servants, including probationary employees.

Alsup’s decision followed the Supreme Court’s vacating of his temporary pause on the probationary dismissals in April, prompting him to remark in court the next day, “They are the boss. I’m just a district judge.” Although the Supreme Court’s shadow docket orders are intended to be temporary, Alsup noted that the court has made clear it will overrule judicially granted relief concerning hiring and firing within the executive branch, not just in this case but in others.

The outcome for terminated employees like Beck is disappointing: despite a court’s finding that their dismissals were illegal, the government was allowed to carry out the mass layoffs. The Trump administration has since appealed Alsup’s decision.

Beck was eight months into her NOAA position when she was fired on February 27 as part of the Trump administration’s wave of probationary worker dismissals. Her work in Alaska focused on minimizing harm to seabirds while maintaining the financial well-being of fishing communities. After a decade of related work at a nonprofit, Beck sought a more direct role in addressing conservation challenges within the government.

Now, she’s finding it challenging to revive her career. Under the Trump administration, funding for science has faced significant cuts, and the job market is flooded with qualified candidates. At 38 years old, Beck has been managing short-term assignments, but they don’t fully compensate for her loss. She and her husband had planned to have a child when she was fired, and she attributes their ongoing fertility struggles to her financial instability.

“It’s been a hard lesson in living with uncertainty,” Beck said.

A Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services employee, dismissed from his role in healthcare technology, is still grappling with the consequences of his termination at 50 years old. Unable to secure new employment, he has encountered numerous initial interviews only to be told that companies are not interested in pursuing him further or hear nothing at all. For fear of complicating his job search, this individual requested anonymity.

Meanwhile, his attempts to claim unemployment insurance through the state of New York have stalled. Online, he finds his claim listed as “under review.” He has made numerous attempts to contact someone who can assist him but has often encountered disconnected lines.

“Nobody’s available to talk to you,” he said.

His decades of experience in healthcare IT were highly sought after until last year. When he joined the government in 2024, he was one of 1,300 applicants for three positions. “I was totally enjoying it, doing some meaningful work,” the former employee shared. He received a strong performance review in January, shortly before his dismissal.

He looked forward to exploring artificial intelligence applications for identifying errors in clinical data. Now, he’s unsure whether someone else will pick up the work. All he knows is that with Alsup’s order, it won’t be him.

Since February, Alsup has been critical of the government, labeling the mass dismissal of probationary employees for performance reasons as a “sham intended to circumvent statutory requirements” for downsizing the government. At times, he questioned whether government lawyers were truthful.

In March, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt released a statement accusing the judge of attempting to seize unconstitutional control over hiring and firing powers from the Executive Branch, and inviting him to run for president himself. In his September 12 order, Alsup once again chastised the government for failing to produce essential documents and records as required by the court, hindering the judicial review process.

While the relief ordered by Alsup fell short of what Beck had hoped for, she is grateful that he has mandated agencies to clarify, in official documentation and letters to fired employees, that their terminations were unrelated to their performance. Alsup first ordered such letters months ago, after discovering that agencies had not evaluated individual employee performances before dismissing them. Without these letters, employees may face ongoing questions about their job performance.

In the months following, Beck received two letters from the government – a generic one and a subsequent one with her name on it. She referred to these as an “apology/non-apology.” The letters acknowledge that she was not terminated due to her performance and state that the government is providing such notice only due to a court order, while maintaining that the order is “legally and factually erroneous” and is being appealed.

This time, Alsup has given federal agencies until November 14 to reissue the letters without disclaimers. The government has since appealed Alsup’s final order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. As Beck contemplates her future, she wonders if she will carry a tarnished employment record.

“It will make it difficult to explain to future employers outside of the government and will absolutely make it difficult to get another federal job,” she said.