States Challenge Trump’s Mass Layoffs of Federal Employees

The Trump administration’s firing of thousands of probationary federal employees was unlawful, a lawsuit filed in federal court by 19 states and the District of Columbia says.

The administration exceeded its lawful authority and violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not following the statutory procedures for a reduction in force, including providing the employees with 60 days advance notice of their termination, the complaint filed Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Maryland says.

The mass layoffs are part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s effort to streamline the federal workforce. But federal employees from the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior, and Veterans Affairs also filed notices of appeals at the Merit Systems Protection Board to challenge the RIFs.

The RIFs harmed the employees and their families and prevented the states from preparing to provide them the immediate services required by federal law, including, job placement and job training, the complaint here says. Because of the mass layoffs, the states must now scramble to find additional resources to provide the affected employees with unemployment and health insurance, it says.

The mass layoffs also increased the administrative demands on the states to adjudicate unemployment claims, decreased the states’ tax revenue, and increased the demand for social services, the complaint says. The states also lost the services of federal employees who were embedded within state agencies, it says.

The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The states are Maryland, Minnesota, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

The Department of Justice didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The state attorneys general are named counsel in the suit.

The case is Maryland v. Dep’t of Agriculture, D. Md., No. 1:25-cv-00748-ABA, complaint filed 3/6/25.