Anonymous wrote:WaPo says state department has conference rooms booked for Friday to do the RIFs.

Wasn't that last Friday? Or the Friday before?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the law include reissuing Rif notices that were dated June 2. Do you think they will make them effective by the end of July or immediately.

I'm not an expert but from what I've read, the RIF notice is valid as long as it's still within the 60 day period. Once those are past, they would have to issue a new one and restart the 60 days.

What about if the agency emailed RIF’ed people to say they were reinstated? They are on extended admin leave now, not actually reinstated to their jobs. But technically, they were told they were not RIF’ed. I would think the clock would need to start again but who knows.

WaPo says state department has conference rooms booked for Friday to do the RIFs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so sorry to the federal workers who will be affected by this. You deserve better than this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/us/politics/supreme-court-federal-workers-layoffs.html

Supreme Court Clears Way for Mass Firings at Federal Agencies
The justices announced they were not ruling on the legality of the specific downsizing plans but they allowed the Trump administration to proceed for now with its restructuring efforts.

Every day more progress to stop the bloat and waste at gov agencies

Have friends that used to talk how they did nothing during Covid. Fed is middle class welfare. Worked at dept of interior

Don’t you need to get back to knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, and watching Fox News? Buh-bye!

Anonymous wrote:Basic question: Have the probationary employees (at HHS or wherever) who were laid off earlier this year still been getting paid while these court decisions were TBD/undecided?

Or did they stop getting paid right after they were laid off? Thanks

All of those people were fired on May 8th and are no longer getting paid.

Basic question: Have the probationary employees (at HHS or wherever) who were laid off earlier this year still been getting paid while these court decisions were TBD/undecided?

Or did they stop getting paid right after they were laid off? Thanks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be taught in law school to show the Judiciary is the weakest branch of our government. Our Supreme Court would allow our democracy to fall just to adhere to procedure then later order the government to clean up the smoking ashes and return to status quo.

Even Sotomayor and Kagan agreed on this one. They have to interpret the law, not legislate.

The lawsuits sort of jumped the gun. And then the Supreme Court jumped the gun too. The Supreme Court is making these procedural rulings, trying to pretend that they are in the right while everyone else is failing to cross their Ts and dot their Is. But they're doing it too. Apolitical and nonpartisan? SMH

Anonymous wrote:Does the law include reissuing Rif notices that were dated June 2. Do you think they will make them effective by the end of July or immediately.

I'm not an expert but from what I've read, the RIF notice is valid as long as it's still within the 60 day period. Once those are past, they would have to issue a new one and restart the 60 days.

Anonymous wrote:This should be taught in law school to show the Judiciary is the weakest branch of our government. Our Supreme Court would allow our democracy to fall just to adhere to procedure then later order the government to clean up the smoking ashes and return to status quo.

Even Sotomayor and Kagan agreed on this one. They have to interpret the law, not legislate.

Does the law include reissuing Rif notices that were dated June 2. Do you think they will make them effective by the end of July or immediately.

Anonymous wrote:I thought that folks covered by a union were still safe, not true?

It has to follow the law. Which means the layoffs happen then lawsuits are filed. Once that's done and it goes through appeals the SCOTUS will say that the provision in the union contract limiting the President's power to fire people is illegal but that the rest of the contract provisions weren't being decided on.

By the time the court makes this ruling it will be a couple of years from now and everyone laid off will have new work anyway. It isn't possible reinstate hundreds of thousands of people in 2027 or 2028 that were laid off in 2025 even if SCOTUS ruled in the favor of feds. Also, not all feds have union contracts and not all contracts are the same for those that do have them.

At best we'll see people on extended admin leave while lower courts make a decision. Extended admin leave will, of course, be ruled unlawful by SCOTUS in a few months based on an """emergency""" request.

I thought that folks covered by a union were still safe, not true?

Anonymous wrote:From AFGE?

AFGE doesn't exist at the moment thanks to the 9th Circuit's stay last night.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The court is basically saying that Trump has to the executive power to execute his EO and that the court is not opining on the legality of the reorg plans, which include RIFs because they did not have those plans to review. Thus, the court is not opining on whether the plans and the execution of those plans are being done under the law since all they had to go on was the EO. So all this does is set the stage for more lawsuits and in the meantime, Trump has a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants and fire the entire fed govt if he wants to. It’s sad. I feel like we were just put infront of the firing squad but it was a weak case to begin with.

No, as long as the current CR is in effect, RIFs are unlawful and will be enjoined immediately. Courts are acting quickly with all of these actions.

No one will be fired or laid off per this EO, until Congress passes legislation for it.

Where did you get the idea that the current CR bans RIFs? That's 100% untrue. The State Department notified their reorg, including RIFs, as required. No pushback from Congress. I feel horribly for State folks being RIFed, but I don't think the reorg is actually illegal.

Congress told State No, State retooled their reorg plan and then waited for the Supreme Court decision as many other agencies have been doing. Waiting for a Yes or a No.

Which this isn't.

Total fiction. State didn't actually think it's reorg was covered by the PI (that was DOJ's position) until the court ruled otherwise about a week before it was due to occur. Otherwise, it was going forward. In fact, it would have gone forward last Friday if the SC had decided on this action before the end of its term as many expected. Congressional notification requirements do not require an affirmative yes in response, I'm afraid.

From AFGE?