A federal judge has ruled against the reinstatement of eight inspectors general who were dismissed by former President Trump during his time in office. The ruling comes from Judge Ana Reyes, who was appointed by President Biden. Although Reyes acknowledged that Trump violated legal standards by firing the inspectors general, she stated that her court did not have the authority to restore their positions.
Judge Reyes emphasized that, under established legal precedents, the plaintiffs—the fired inspectors general—must demonstrate irreparable harm to secure their reinstatement. “[Under] well-established case law that this Court is bound to follow, Plaintiffs must show irreparable harm. And they cannot,” she said in her ruling. Reyes pointed out that the inspectors general’s inability to fulfill their duties for just 30 days does not constitute irreparable harm in a legal sense. Furthermore, she noted that if they were reinstated, Trump would still have the power to remove them again after 30 days with proper notice to Congress.
This legal battle traces back to Trump’s controversial actions shortly after assuming the presidency. In a rapid move, he dismissed over a dozen inspectors general, prompting claims from eight of them that the firings violated a law enacted by Congress in 2022. This law mandates that a president provide Congress with a 30-day notice and detailed reasons before terminating an inspector general.
Reyes has previously scolded the lawyers representing the fired inspectors general. In one instance, she expressed frustration over the lawyers’ delay in filing their lawsuit and their request for an emergency temporary restraining order. Their comparison of the firings to other government personnel changes, including that of a recently dismissed Special Counsel, earned even more ire from Reyes, leading her to threaten the lawyers with sanctions.
The legality and justifications behind Trump’s dismissals of inspectors general are under debate. Critics, including Real Clear Politics reporter Susan Crabtree, have raised concerns about the past performance of many inspectors general. “These IGs, who are in a position to identify and clean up waste and abuse, have long histories of whitewashing reports and playing politics,” she noted. While the ruling has generated controversy, it aligns with a broader discussion about executive authority and accountability within the federal oversight landscape.
"*" indicates required fields
