Yesterday, a new complaint was filed challenging the firing of probationary employees. The plaintiffs in this case, however, were not the fired employees. They could challenge their removal through the usual civil service process, and not in federal court. But here, twenty states sued almost every department in the federal government.
What is the basis for Article III standing? Are the states suing parens patriae on behalf of their residents who work for the federal government? No, the states have articulated some sort of pocketbook injury:
This campaign is harming Plaintiff States, too. In addition to the informational and procedural injuries resulting from the deprivation of notice to which they were entitled, the lack of notice has impeded the ability of many Plaintiff States to support affected employees and thereby mitigate the financial and other impacts on state services. In fact, pursuant to federal statutory requirements, Plaintiff States operate rapid response teams that provide immediate services and resources to workers subject to mass layoffs. These services include job placement and job training services as well as connections to social services like unemployment insurance and health insurance. Because of Defendants’ failure to adhere to the RIF notice procedures, many Plaintiff States have had to scramble and expend additional resources to identify even which agencies have conducted layoffs and which affected employees require support.
As best as I can tell, this is even more attenuated than anything Texas asserted. If this ground of standing is acceptable, than nearly any action the federal government takes, with regard to federal employees, can be challenged in federal court.
