Emergency application

Firing federal workers

Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees

Granted

No. 24A904Stay applicationFiled by the federal governmentPresented to Justice KaganFrom United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court granted the request on April 8, 2025: the lower court's ruling is on hold while the appeal continues.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case. Justice Sotomayor would have ruled the other way.

Filed March 24, 2025Ruled April 8, 202515 days after filing

What's being asked

The federal government asks the Supreme Court to temporarily pause a March 13 California district court order. The government says the order requires it to reinstate thousands of federal employees whose terminations nonprofit groups have challenged. It argues those groups lack the legal right to sue because their members use government services.

What the Court did

The Court gave the government emergency relief, putting the March 13 order on hold (staying it) during the Ninth Circuit appeal. It said the order relied only on nine nonprofits’ allegations, insufficient to show their legal right to sue, and left other plaintiffs’ claims unaddressed. The order does not report how the full Court voted; Justice Sotomayor would have denied the request.

Dissented
Vote not published

Dissenting · 1recorded against the Court's order: Sotomayorwould deny
Vote not published · 8the order does not say how they voted: Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Kagan
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson

The order records the positions of 1 of 9 justices. The Court usually does not say how each justice voted on an emergency application, so the rest are shown as not published.

Half of 82 rulings on applications where the Court asked for a response came 10 to 26 days after filing, and the median was 17 days; this one was ruled on 15 days after filing.

What it means

This temporary emergency order does not decide who wins the underlying case. The order remains paused during the Ninth Circuit appeal and any timely petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case. No related merits case or argument is listed.

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 24A904. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 4, 2026

Docket timeline

FiledMar 24, 2025
Application (24A904) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Application (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Response requestedMar 27, 2025
Response to application (24A904) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 12 p.m. (EDT) on April 3, 2025.
Docket entryMar 27, 2025
Letter of applicant United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. filed.
Document 1 (PDF)
Docket entryMar 27, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of APA Watch filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)
ResponseApr 3, 2025
Response to application from respondents American Federation of Government Employees, et al. filed.
Response (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entryApr 3, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Former Government Officials Donald Ayer, et al. filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)Document 3 (PDF)
Docket entryApr 3, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of County of Santa Clara, Calif. filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)Document 3 (PDF)
ReplyApr 4, 2025
Reply of applicant Office of Personnel Management, et al. filed.
Reply (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Referred to the full CourtApr 8, 2025
Application (24A904) referred to the Court.
OrderApr 8, 2025
Application (24A904) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1780, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application. Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable harm. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus, she would have denied the application.
15 days after filing
OrderApr 8, 2025
Application (24A904) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1780, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application. Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable harm. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus, she would have denied the application.
15 days after filing

The case below

Ruling under review: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-1677
Filings: The application (PDF)