NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

LOL. It seems you don’t know many people located outside this area. Most of the Fed workforce is located outside DC. RIFs (and Fed contractor layoffs) have happened all over and they have ripple effects to the local economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

LOL. It seems you don’t know many people located outside this area. Most of the Fed workforce is located outside DC. RIFs (and Fed contractor layoffs) have happened all over and they have ripple effects to the local economy.

The funniest thing is when these R congress people get pissed that the RIFs are happening in their districts and not just DC. Or when research grants get cut for universities in their districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

I agree. Cuts are very popular. There’s a whole segment of America that’s blue collar or service sector that’s thrilled when white collar people lose their jobs. In my opinion their anger should be with the ceos who are making $$$ and not feds making 85k on average but all they see is income inequality. The richest fed makes like 250k? And those are the very top level ones. The majority, per doge, make 85k on average.

I have relatives who actually thought the cuts were strategic and purposeful for efficiency. When I explained to them that they were basically paying anyone who wants to leave to do so. Many are already about to retire. Attorneys and IT people who the government needs but has trouble hiring. All new hires regardless of position. They were shocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

I agree. Cuts are very popular. There’s a whole segment of America that’s blue collar or service sector that’s thrilled when white collar people lose their jobs. In my opinion their anger should be with the ceos who are making $$$ and not feds making 85k on average but all they see is income inequality. The richest fed makes like 250k? And those are the very top level ones. The majority, per doge, make 85k on average.

I have relatives who actually thought the cuts were strategic and purposeful for efficiency. When I explained to them that they were basically paying anyone who wants to leave to do so. Many are already about to retire. Attorneys and IT people who the government needs but has trouble hiring. All new hires regardless of position. They were shocked.

Their “surprise” and ignorance is the entire problem here.

Nobody seems to know what the government does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

I haven't seen a reasoned opinion denying standing to these non-employee plaintiffs. The problem is that everything is being decided in an emergency posture (granting or denying emergency stays on injunctions) and the appellate courts are shooting from the hip, granting or denying based on their idealogical predispositions. The 4th Circuit, for example, in overturning Judge Bredar's decision on the probationaries, simply said there may look to be standing problems. And that was it. The district court judge, on the other hand, made a very detailed argument analyzing standing and found standing. Same with the case in California for the probationaries. No reasoned, let alone persuasive, opinion from the Supreme Court in granting the government's stay, in the fact of very detailed and persuasive arguments from the lower courts finding standing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

LOL. It seems you don’t know many people located outside this area. Most of the Fed workforce is located outside DC. RIFs (and Fed contractor layoffs) have happened all over and they have ripple effects to the local economy.

The funniest thing is when these R congress people get pissed that the RIFs are happening in their districts and not just DC. Or when research grants get cut for universities in their districts.

Like that recent article about cuts to a Montana research lab. Thought it wouldn’t happen to their small town and are now upset.
Or the black lung sufferers in coal country upset about NIOSH cuts.
All of them were in support of cuts as long as it didn’t impact them.
Short sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

LOL. It seems you don’t know many people located outside this area. Most of the Fed workforce is located outside DC. RIFs (and Fed contractor layoffs) have happened all over and they have ripple effects to the local economy.

The funniest thing is when these R congress people get pissed that the RIFs are happening in their districts and not just DC. Or when research grants get cut for universities in their districts.

+1 Everyone complains about government pork until it gets cut from their district. But the cuts are happening--and so many Feds have already been cut off from government systems so we'll see if this is too little too late.

[Anonymous]

Apparently Alabama low key got a ton of government research grants. Didn't know about that until their R senator made a plea to Trump not to cut this funding, which ended up getting cut.

[Anonymous]

Someone I knew got let go from nih. There job was in the nih communications department. They basically sat around all day waiting to post things to a website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone I knew got let go from nih. There job was in the nih communications department. They basically sat around all day waiting to post things to a website.

Why can't the nih managers just post it themselves since it's all CMS not manual html. That's why they got fired things like this, 1990s website ideas but the hidden fact they were just posting it through a CMS. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a print a PDF specialist for the govt boomer workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

I haven't seen a reasoned opinion denying standing to these non-employee plaintiffs. The problem is that everything is being decided in an emergency posture (granting or denying emergency stays on injunctions) and the appellate courts are shooting from the hip, granting or denying based on their idealogical predispositions. The 4th Circuit, for example, in overturning Judge Bredar's decision on the probationaries, simply said there may look to be standing problems. And that was it. The district court judge, on the other hand, made a very detailed argument analyzing standing and found standing. Same with the case in California for the probationaries. No reasoned, let alone persuasive, opinion from the Supreme Court in granting the government's stay, in the fact of very detailed and persuasive arguments from the lower courts finding standing.

Agreed. A case with standing will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court and then we will get to the separation of powers issue. For example the CFPB case has a plaintiff whose appointment with CFPB staff was cancelled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

I haven't seen a reasoned opinion denying standing to these non-employee plaintiffs. The problem is that everything is being decided in an emergency posture (granting or denying emergency stays on injunctions) and the appellate courts are shooting from the hip, granting or denying based on their idealogical predispositions. The 4th Circuit, for example, in overturning Judge Bredar's decision on the probationaries, simply said there may look to be standing problems. And that was it. The district court judge, on the other hand, made a very detailed argument analyzing standing and found standing. Same with the case in California for the probationaries. No reasoned, let alone persuasive, opinion from the Supreme Court in granting the government's stay, in the fact of very detailed and persuasive arguments from the lower courts finding standing.

Agreed. A case with standing will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court and then we will get to the separation of powers issue. For example the CFPB case has a plaintiff whose appointment with CFPB staff was cancelled.

Sure, but "eventually" means "eventually." Not much help for people today or a few months from now, in practical terms. A lot of agencies will have been functionally dismantled by then. Let's say they are forced to rebuild in 4 years - it won't be with the current staff. It will be a good thing, but it is not going to help those impacted by RIFs now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone I knew got let go from nih. There job was in the nih communications department. They basically sat around all day waiting to post things to a website.

That is such a blatant misrepresentation of what the communications office did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

I haven't seen a reasoned opinion denying standing to these non-employee plaintiffs. The problem is that everything is being decided in an emergency posture (granting or denying emergency stays on injunctions) and the appellate courts are shooting from the hip, granting or denying based on their idealogical predispositions. The 4th Circuit, for example, in overturning Judge Bredar's decision on the probationaries, simply said there may look to be standing problems. And that was it. The district court judge, on the other hand, made a very detailed argument analyzing standing and found standing. Same with the case in California for the probationaries. No reasoned, let alone persuasive, opinion from the Supreme Court in granting the government's stay, in the fact of very detailed and persuasive arguments from the lower courts finding standing.

Agreed. A case with standing will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court and then we will get to the separation of powers issue. For example the CFPB case has a plaintiff whose appointment with CFPB staff was cancelled.

Sure, but "eventually" means "eventually." Not much help for people today or a few months from now, in practical terms. A lot of agencies will have been functionally dismantled by then. Let's say they are forced to rebuild in 4 years - it won't be with the current staff. It will be a good thing, but it is not going to help those impacted by RIFs now.

Not sure about that. The most recent TRO granted in NDCA will go to the 9th Circuit. They aren't going to grant a stay. So the TRO is in place right now and will continue to be. And that benefits people right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

I haven't seen a reasoned opinion denying standing to these non-employee plaintiffs. The problem is that everything is being decided in an emergency posture (granting or denying emergency stays on injunctions) and the appellate courts are shooting from the hip, granting or denying based on their idealogical predispositions. The 4th Circuit, for example, in overturning Judge Bredar's decision on the probationaries, simply said there may look to be standing problems. And that was it. The district court judge, on the other hand, made a very detailed argument analyzing standing and found standing. Same with the case in California for the probationaries. No reasoned, let alone persuasive, opinion from the Supreme Court in granting the government's stay, in the fact of very detailed and persuasive arguments from the lower courts finding standing.

Agreed. A case with standing will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court and then we will get to the separation of powers issue. For example the CFPB case has a plaintiff whose appointment with CFPB staff was cancelled.

Sure, but "eventually" means "eventually." Not much help for people today or a few months from now, in practical terms. A lot of agencies will have been functionally dismantled by then. Let's say they are forced to rebuild in 4 years - it won't be with the current staff. It will be a good thing, but it is not going to help those impacted by RIFs now.

Not sure about that. The most recent TRO granted in NDCA will go to the 9th Circuit. They aren't going to grant a stay. So the TRO is in place right now and will continue to be. And that benefits people right now.

And doesn’t Kagan have responsibility over the 9th Circuit or something to that effect in case Dump tries to go to SCOTUS?