Eight inspectors general abruptly fired by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term appeared in federal court Thursday to challenge their dismissals — a long-shot case that nonetheless sparked fireworks during oral arguments.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes acknowledged on Thursday that it would be difficult for the court to reinstate the eight ousted inspectors generals, who were part of a broader group of 17 government watchdogs abruptly terminated by Trump in January, just four days into his second White House term.
In a lawsuit last month, the eight inspectors general challenged their firings as both ‘unlawful and unjustified’ and asked to be reinstated — a remedy that Reyes acknowledged Thursday would be exceedingly difficult, even if she were to find that their firings were unconstitutional.
‘Unless you convince me otherwise,’ she told the plaintiffs, ‘I don’t see how I could reinstate the inspectors general’ to their roles.
Reyes suggested that the best the court could do would be to order back pay, even as she told both parties, ‘I don’t think anyone can contest that the removal of these people — the way that they were fired — was a violation of the law.’
The preliminary injunction hearing comes more than a month after the eight fired inspectors general filed a lawsuit challenging their termination as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs asked the judge to restore them to their positions, noting in the filing, ‘President Trump’s attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial, non-partisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law.’
Still, the remedies are considered a long shot — and Trump supporters have argued that the president was well within his executive branch powers to make such personnel decisions under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and updates to federal policy.
In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any ‘reasons’ for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a ‘substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons’ for terminations.
The 30-day period was a major focus of Thursday’s hearing, as the court weighed whether inspectors general can be considered ‘principal’ or inferior officers.
The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of ‘changing priorities’ from within the administration.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter.
Reyes, for her part, previously did not appear to be moved by the plaintiffs’ bid for emergency relief.
She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order — a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove ‘irreparable’ and immediate harm as a result of the actions — and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing.