Staff Reports
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has done it again, stepping up as a self-appointed guardian of bloated government and champion of inefficiency. This time, the court refused to let the Trump administration halt a lower court order requiring the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to reinstate federal workers who were let go. Apparently, the judges believe that keeping federal jobs intact is more important than trimming the ever-expanding behemoth that is the federal bureaucracy.
This legal skirmish kicked off when the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) decided to file a lawsuit after six federal agencies saw fit to terminate probationary employees back in February. How dare those agencies try to clean house! The district court knee-jerked to the union’s call, claiming the firings were wrongful and demanding the government immediately restore these erstwhile employees to their cushy federal jobs. One can only wonder if the district court is in cahoots with the union, as it seems to love the status quo of endless government jobs—jobs that often contribute little to society.
In a twist of irony that would make even the most seasoned political analyst chuckle, the White House sought an emergency stay on this ruling, arguing that reinstating these employees would saddle the government with an overwhelming administrative burden. But the appellate judges, perhaps enjoying a spot of judicial activism, saw things differently. They denied the request and decreed that stopping the order would cause such disruption that it might very well flip the script on the whole system. It’s almost as if they think maintaining a bloated bureaucracy is more important than accountability or efficiency!
Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Effort to Reverse Reinstatement of Federal Workers https://t.co/thqz08p7sl
— Deenie (@deenie7940) March 17, 2025
Making the split even juicier, Judge Bridget Bade dissented from her colleagues’ decision. She pointed out that lifting a temporary stay would actually prevent the “substantial administrative burden” on federal agencies. In a world where chaos reigns supreme, ordering the rehiring of thousands of employees on short notice hardly seems like a recipe for stability. Bade went further, implying that if the Trump administration eventually won its case, her colleagues might just have made a colossal mistake. It appears even judges can clutch at straws when it comes to justifying maintaining the status quo.
This mess highlights yet another setback for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in its noble crusade to weed out waste and fraud. In a classic case of government vs. the people, DOGE faces ten lawsuits designed to thwart its attempts to shrink the size—and cost—of federal agencies. In an era where taxpayers should demand fiscal responsibility, unions, activists, and even the courts seem bent on ensuring that inefficiency remains alive and well. It seems the only thing that gets cut more than federal spending these days is a laughably thin layer of accountability that still protects government employees from the realities of a functioning economy.
Elon Musk recently joined the conversation, highlighting that the waste being dug up by DOGE is all too obvious—no detective skills required. From discovering more government credit cards than human beings to uncovering spending that borders on the absurd, the evidence of inefficiency just keeps piling up. As DOGE soldiers on against an army of litigation, one can’t help but question whether the court systems aim to champion the wasteful status quo or simply prefer a government that takes its sweet time in delivering any semblance of effectiveness.
