3 ms·

Question for lawyers. I can understand and respect someone leaving on principle, or someone simply unable to tolerate an immediate situation. But if a governm

by neilv 2y ago

Question for lawyers. I can understand and respect someone leaving on principle, or someone simply unable to tolerate an immediate situation. But if a government employee is feeling under occupation by a destructive invader, and possibly expecting to be terminated, do they keep significant legal options open by waiting it out, rather than resigning, if they can tolerate to do so? For example, let's say that significant elements of legislative or judicial branches decide not to play along with the current maneuvers, and take corrective action. Or let's say that employees are able to sue for reinstatement, with damages? Or to sue rogue individuals personally, in some way that pierces whatever immunity the rogues might think they enjoy. Does the wronged person have a better case if they don't resign?

UncleOxidant 2y ago
Not a lawyer, but I wonder about this as well though more from the standpoint of trying to stay in there to be a witness to the destruction and to try to do what you can to slow it down. Though in this case, as he was still probationary he wouldn't have had that option. They (DOGE) found out that it's hard to fire federal government employees, but they found the loophole with probationary employees.
layer8 2y ago
Not a lawyer, but by resigning voluntarily, you basically relinquish all options regarding keeping the job that you would otherwise have had. You can’t later invoke that you didn’t really mean to resign. It’s also often more advantageous to wait to be let go in order to collect severance pay. (Though likely not for the OP due to his probationary status, and there is also a big question mark regarding pay for the current government layoffs.)
ajross 2y ago
All your questions presuppose an executive branch that is bound by the decisions of the judicial branch. This one isn't, or certainly doesn't feel that it is. So the answer is practical, not legal. The control they can exert is the control they can get away with exerting without undue cost. That might involve accepting the results of law suits from disgruntled employees, or it might not. Certainly right now they seem disinclined.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  There is a point about timescales. The judicial is, by design, retroactive: transgressions are made, cases are litigated, decisions come down, and then redresses are made [0] The executive is, by design, immediate: decisions are made and implemented, then can be legally challenged The gray area between the two is judicial restraining orders, where the facts of the case and/or the possibility of unredressable outcomes support the immediate nullification of an order, while the case is being litigated. [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293078/a-constitutional-stress-test-trump-executive-orders-are-challenged-in-court https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293078/a-constitutiona...
  - ajross 2y ago
    Again this presupposes compliance by the executive. So far they haven't, maybe they won't. But I can all but guarantee that at some point this administration is going to start, likely with great fanfare and applause from its partisan media and the libertarian set here on HN, simply ignoring restraining orders it dislikes. And then where will we be?
Spooky23 2y ago
When you have due process rights, it’s always better to wait it out. Eventually the law will catch up, and even if you don’t get your job back, you’ll likely get money. This situation is unpredictable, there’s likely to be civil unrest when one of these idiots makes a truly destructive move. The more plausible options you have, the better.

by neilv 2y ago

UncleOxidant 2y ago

Not a lawyer, but I wonder about this as well though more from the standpoint of trying to stay in there to be a witness to the destruction and to try to do what you can to slow it down. Though in this case, as he was still probationary he wouldn't have had that option. They (DOGE) found out that it's hard to fire federal government employees, but they found the loophole with probationary employees.

layer8 2y ago

Not a lawyer, but by resigning voluntarily, you basically relinquish all options regarding keeping the job that you would otherwise have had. You can’t later invoke that you didn’t really mean to resign. It’s also often more advantageous to wait to be let go in order to collect severance pay. (Though likely not for the OP due to his probationary status, and there is also a big question mark regarding pay for the current government layoffs.)

ajross 2y ago

All your questions presuppose an executive branch that is bound by the decisions of the judicial branch. This one isn't, or certainly doesn't feel that it is. So the answer is practical, not legal. The control they can exert is the control they can get away with exerting without undue cost. That might involve accepting the results of law suits from disgruntled employees, or it might not. Certainly right now they seem disinclined.

ethbr1 2y ago
There is a point about timescales. The judicial is, by design, retroactive: transgressions are made, cases are litigated, decisions come down, and then redresses are made [0] The executive is, by design, immediate: decisions are made and implemented, then can be legally challenged The gray area between the two is judicial restraining orders, where the facts of the case and/or the possibility of unredressable outcomes support the immediate nullification of an order, while the case is being litigated. [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293078/a-constitutional-stress-test-trump-executive-orders-are-challenged-in-court https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/nx-s1-5293078/a-constitutiona...
- ajross 2y ago
  Again this presupposes compliance by the executive. So far they haven't, maybe they won't. But I can all but guarantee that at some point this administration is going to start, likely with great fanfare and applause from its partisan media and the libertarian set here on HN, simply ignoring restraining orders it dislikes. And then where will we be?

Spooky23 2y ago

When you have due process rights, it’s always better to wait it out. Eventually the law will catch up, and even if you don’t get your job back, you’ll likely get money. This situation is unpredictable, there’s likely to be civil unrest when one of these idiots makes a truly destructive move. The more plausible options you have, the better.