September, 2025
Washington — Federal district judge Ana C. Reyes has issued her decision in the Inspectors General case that is not only eyebrow-raising but bodes ill for the country well beyond determining the fate of the IGs.
Here are her own words, followed by my reactions:
On January 24, 2025, four days into his second term, President Trump fired many IGs. He did not first notify Congress and he did not provide any rationale, much less a substantive one containing detailed and case-specific reasons for the firing. Plaintiffs, eight of the fired IGs, sued Defendants, their respective agency heads and the President, alleging that President Trump violated the IGA by failing to provide the required notice and rationale. They seek, along with back pay and benefits, to be reinstated pending the President’s compliance with the IGA.
So far, so good. But then she continues:
But under well-established case law that this Court is bound to follow, Plaintiffs must show irreparable harm. And they cannot. Even assuming that the IGA comports with Article II, Plaintiffs’ inability to perform their duties for 30 days is not irreparable harm. Moreover, if the IGs were reinstated, the President could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress. Unable to reinstate Plaintiffs to their positions, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Permanent Injunction.
In other words, Judge Reyes sees no irreparable harm in this and, because she thinks the president "could" fire them again — this time as Congress prescribed — she declines to make the president actually follow the law. However, what makes the judge think the president would comply with congressional requirements, when he has already said Article II allows him to do what he pleases, and he is not about to make concessions to Congress that would invalidate his view? He can simply continue to lock out the IGs illegally. She is giving him the court's blessing to do so.
This is not just a slippery-slope, it is a free-fall undermining of the checks and balances of both the legislative and judicial branches. And since when do judges make such important decisions based on mere speculation of what could happen, but most likely wouldn't?
On irreparable harm, which Judge Reyes cannot find:
The question here is whether the President’s failure to provide the required 30-day notice and rationale to Congress constitutes irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.... [E]ven if Plaintiffs’ absence compromised the OIGs, any resulting harm would affect the institution. And it is unclear how such an institutional harm could justify an individual statutory right to reinstatement.
In her view, there is no institutional harm involved, because:
No such institutional collapse is imminent here, as each of the OIGs “continues to operate” with leaders “functioning as acting” IGs. ... In other words... the OIGs will not “shutter[ ]” if the Court denies Plaintiffs’ requested reinstatement.
As to it being "unclear" about how institutional harm, if there was any, could justify individual IG reinstatement, the four-factor test Judge Reyes herself cites as case law precedent to determine irreparable harm specifically includes a "public interest" component. Unfortunately, she downplays and dismisses it. Incredibly — at least to me — she does not think requiring the president to follow the law is of sufficient public interest to warrant reinstatement of the IGs, as if the big issue here is whether the IGs have another recourse to claiming back pay.
If the public interest is not sufficiently obvious with regard to making the president follow the rule of law, it should be with regard to the statutory purpose of the IGs, which is to root out waste, fraud and abuse. Let me offer an actual example of which I am aware. It has come to the attention of experienced and credible experts in their field that a government program is being illegally exploited. Many of its participants, as well as federal taxpayers, are victims. The situation, involving alarming sums, calls for reporting the fraud and abuse to the agency's duly appointed and confirmed IG. It will not be reported to functionaries whose loyalty to the president is paramount.
This is clearly irreparable, ongoing harm to the public interest. Even if the agency IG is reinstated for only 30 days, the fraud will be reported. This should be a factor in any appeal of Judge Reyes's decision.
Finally, there is the matter of this curious sentence in the decision: "Plaintiffs’ inability to perform their duties for 30 days is not irreparable harm." This statement appears to be a misunderstanding of what is going on. The IGs have been illegally sidelined for months.
Or the district court is acting like a TV network, a college, or a law firm that does not want a confrontation with the president, and by trivializing the issues, is ducking a showdown over the rule of law.
May the decision be appealed, and quickly.
