Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has joined a coalition of 22 states in supporting President Donald J. Trump's "Fork Directive." This directive offers buyouts to federal employees who choose to resign, aiming to reallocate government resources more efficiently.
The attorneys general filed an amicus brief on Sunday with the United States District Court in Massachusetts, requesting the denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Charles Ezell, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management, et al. The states argue that they have a vested interest due to their frequent interactions with federal workers and potential impacts on their own workforce management if Trump's authority is limited.
"This directive is a vital step toward restoring accountability and efficiency in our federal government," stated Attorney General Marshall. He emphasized that President Trump holds constitutional authority over the federal workforce and noted public demand for a more streamlined government.
Federal employees were offered deferred resignation effective immediately with pay and benefits through September 30 if they accepted by February 6. Despite a temporary halt by a federal judge last week, 65,000 employees had accepted the offer before the deadline. A court hearing on this matter is scheduled for Monday afternoon.
The attorneys general maintain that President Trump’s executive power under Article II of the U.S. Constitution includes managing federal employees and offering voluntary deferred resignation options. They argue that the strong response from federal workers indicates support for the directive and aligns with public opinion favoring reduced government size and wastefulness.
"The American people elected a president who repeatedly made clear his desire for a more efficient, smaller government," according to the brief submitted by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen along with attorneys general from Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
The plaintiffs' request for relief was described as contradictory since they initially claimed harm from the directive but later sought its implementation under less stringent timelines. The brief argues against allowing plaintiffs to change their legal stance late in proceedings.