Appeals court directs Maryland judge to toss states lawsuit over federal firings

Story Snapshot of what you need to know and why it matters:

• A federal appeals court is directing a district judge in Maryland to vacate a previous ruling that required the Trump Administration to reinstate tens-of-thousands of fired probationary workers from 20 different government agencies.

• The appellate court is ordering the judge to toss out a lawsuit filed by 19 states, including Maryland, challenging the terminations, ruling they have no standing to sue.

• Tens-of-thousands of government workers who'd been left in limbo, are potentially impacted by the appeals court's decision.

Full story:

A federal appeals court is ordering a district judge in Maryland to vacate a previous ruling that required the Trump Administration to reinstate tens-of-thousands of fired probationary workers from 20 different government agencies.

Two of three judges sitting on the appeals panel picked apart Judge James Bredar's order, which they concluded "lacked the affirmative power to manage the federal government’s workforce at the behest of state governments."

The lawsuit was initially filed by 19 states led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown.

They accused the federal government of failing to provide proper information and timely notice of the terminations, resulting in financial harm.

The appellate court, however, rejected the states argument, suggesting they had no standing to sue.

"Under plaintiffs’ theory, every modification in federal funding levels would authorize states to sue in federal court. This is all too open-ended," wrote the majority. “[T]he Government, as an employer, must have wide discretion and control over the management of its personnel and internal affairs."

RELATED: Maryland judge orders 20 federal agencies to rehire fired employees in 19 states + D.C.

A major issue raised by the appeals court was the fact that no fired employees sought legal action, rather the states chose to sue on their behalf.

"The real and direct harms were suffered not by the States, but by the terminated probationary employees, none of whom are even parties to this suit. And while the States may have valid practical reasons to be concerned about their citizens employment statuses, they may not masquerade their efforts to serve as [the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves]."

Additionally, as the panel noted, federal district courts are not the correct venue to litigate personnel matters.

"Congress established a comprehensive system for reviewing personnel action taken against federal employees, entitling employees to a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board, and judicial review in the Federal Circuit," the appeals court writes. "Given this comprehensive review system, which excludes the federal district courts and where terminated employees are directed to challenge their terminations and seek reinstatement, we are skeptical that the broad relief that the States sought in this case is available to them in a federal district court."

As result of the appeals ruling, Bredar was directed to dismiss the states lawsuit altogether.

In issuing their directive, the panel majority cited the U.S. Supreme Court twice rejecting similar attempts by employees to litigate their claims in district courts.

"Indeed, the Civil Service Reform Act scheme explains why not a single individual employee is herself a plaintiff in this case," said the panel.