A group of federal judges ruled that President Trump violated the law when he dismissed several inspectors shortly after taking office. However, they ultimately concluded that they couldn’t reinstate these officials to their positions.
US District Judge Ana Reyes, who expressed some empathy in the case, stated that while Trump failed to follow a law that mandates a 30-day notice to Congress before firing an inspector, the plaintiffs couldn’t demonstrate that they suffered irreparable harm.
“It’s clear that President Trump breached the IGA, which supports a strong argument for the plaintiffs to seek restoration to their roles,” Reyes noted, referring to the Inspectors General Act.
However, she pointed out that Trump could terminate them again after issuing the required notice to Congress.
“To comply with established legal precedents, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they faced irreparable harm, and that hasn’t been shown,” she explained.
“Even if the IGA falls under Article II provisions, the claim of not being able to perform duties for 30 days isn’t irreparable. Moreover, the President can lawfully remove the inspectors after the notice period,” she added.
Shortly after his inauguration, Trump let go about 17 inspectors, each receiving a brief memo explaining that their dismissal was within his Article 2 authority.
Reyes’ ruling wraps up a lawsuit that has been ongoing since March when one inspector sought legal action to halt the dismissals.
“The court recognizes the remarkable service of these inspectors, noted for their substantial leadership across various administrations, who have sacrificed much in their roles,” she remarked.
“They truly deserved better from their government, and they still do. Unfortunately, this court can’t offer the plaintiffs any more than what’s already been decided.”
While Reyes denied the request for an injunction, she has yet to rule on a separate request from the dismissed inspector general.
In another point, she reflected on the inspector’s argument, which stated that safeguarding those who protect against waste and fraud should not be considered wrong or against public interest.
“I agree with that,” Reyes concluded.
