Fourth Circuit Says States Lack Standing to Sue on Behalf of Terminated Probationary Employees
The Fourth Circuit issued a decision on September 9, 2025, holding that states lack Article III standing, and as such also lack the ability to bring a federal lawsuit, alleging harm from the termination of probationary federal employees and requesting the relief of reinstatement.
In March 2025, 19 plaintiff States sued 21 federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging the unlawful termination of federal agency probationary employees. The States argued the terminations were unlawful because (1) they were “not a result of individualized, for-cause determinations;” (2) the terminations constituted a reduction in force (RIF); and (3) the federal government did not abide by statutory RIF requirements, including giving the States 60 days’ notice of the terminations.
The States allege that probationary terminations stemming from the President’s Executive Order that sought to “eliminat[e] waste, bloat, and insularity” were effectively a Reduction-in-Force (RIF) without following the required procedures, and caused significant harm to the states. The States alleged that the terminations skyrocketed unemployment rates, and resulted in 330% and 149% increases in Maryland and California, respectively. The States claim that because of the terminations, a substantial amount of state resources were expended via “rapid response programs.” According to the States, state personnel were needed to address the federal shortfall in programs implemented by the States, and therefore, financial and personnel resources were diverted from other state government programs, causing financial harm.
The States requested “immediate temporary relief” to prevent agencies from terminating employees without individualized determinations on specific conduct or performance, and reinstatement for those already terminated. The States also sought “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,” or a court-ordered remedy, to prevent future terminations that suffered the same procedural or substantive defects.
On March 13, 2025, the district court granted the States’ motion for a temporary restraining order, ordered the government to reinstate impacted probationary employees before March 17, 2025, and directed the defendant agencies to not separate employees through probationary termination or RIFs unless they followed notice requirements, regulations, and applicable law. Additionally, a preliminary injunction hearing was set for
March 16, 2025. On April 1, 2025 the States’ request for a preliminary injunction was granted. The government was ordered to undo the terminations of probationary employees.
The U.S. Government, by way of the defendant agencies, appealed the preliminary injunction, requesting a stay, or a suspension of the injunction, pending appeal. On April 9, 2025, the Fourth Circuit granted the stay noting the government was “likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.”
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit explained that jurisdiction is only proper when “a plaintiff has affirmatively established ‘(1) that he or she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) that the injury was caused by the defendant, and (3) that the injury would likely be redressed by the requested judicial relief.’” (citing Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. 538, 540 (2020)). The Fourth Circuit explained that the States cannot use previously incurred expenses to justify harm for purposes of standing because it would not show a present case or controversy, which standing requires. The Fourth Circuit instead explained that prospective relief must be legitimatized by prospective injury.
The Fourth Circuit held that because “the States did not allege a cognizable injury” they are not the proper parties to bring suit. The impacted parties here were federal employees, not the States, and therefore, according to the appeals court, the relief requested by the States was “wholly out of proportion to the injury alleged.”
The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, and the case was remanded for dismissal.
Read the full opinion: State of Maryland v. USDA