President Donald Trump is advancing a controversial plan to reclassify up to 50,000 federal employees as at-will workers, a move that could significantly alter the landscape of federal employment. This initiative, set to take effect on March 9, 2024, is designed to enable easier termination of employees in positions that were previously considered apolitical. However, a recent ruling by the Supreme Court may complicate these efforts.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced a new regulatory framework creating a category called Schedule Policy/Career, or Schedule P/C. This rule would exempt reclassified employees from the usual protections that guard against arbitrary dismissals based on political affiliation or discrimination. The authority to determine which positions fall under this new designation ultimately rests with the president, meaning that Trump would have the final say on federal employment status.
Despite receiving significant backlash during its public comment period—where 94 percent of 40,000 comments opposed the rule—implementation is moving forward. Critics argue that this reclassification undermines the integrity of the civil service and could lead to widespread job insecurity for federal workers.
Legal challenges have already emerged, claiming that the OPM is overstepping its authority. Traditionally, courts have granted agencies substantial deference in interpreting federal laws, a principle known as Cheron deference. This principle allows agencies to navigate ambiguities within the law unless their interpretations are deemed unreasonable. However, the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo fundamentally changed this dynamic by limiting agencies’ interpretative power and reaffirming that courts are responsible for clarifying legal ambiguities.
The new OPM rule, which attempts to broaden the definition of positions exempt from civil service protections, may face scrutiny under this new legal precedent. According to the Congressional Research Service, OPM’s interpretation may be challenged in court due to its expansive reading of terms like “policy-determining” roles. For instance, the rule includes provisions for positions that are involved in reviewing or circulating non-public policy proposals, which could be seen as overly broad.
As a result of these developments, Trump’s administration may find itself in a precarious position in court. Judges will likely be compelled to rely on existing laws and interpretations, rather than accepting the administration’s broader claims. Should legal actions successfully challenge the OPM’s new categorization, it could hinder the president’s ability to reshape the federal workforce as intended.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate legal landscape. Thousands of federal employees are now left uncertain about their job security. While the administration may aim to streamline and control federal employment, the judiciary’s new stance could serve as a critical check on Trump’s ambitions.
As legal proceedings unfold, the future of federal employment protections hangs in the balance. The courts’ willingness to uphold or challenge the OPM’s rule will be pivotal in determining whether these significant changes will take effect, potentially reshaping the federal workforce for years to come.
