SALEM, OR -A group of 20 attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over mass layoffs of probationary federal employees, which they claim is illegal and is causing irreparable harm to their states.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield joined in the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland on Thursday.

“We’ve heard from some of these probationary employees who’ve been fired, and their stories are awful,” Rayfield said in a statement. “One man working for the IRS office in Portland received his ‘fork in the road’ letter right before he went into a life-saving cancer surgery. And then he was fired. The stress this has caused federal workers in Oregon and across America is insurmountable.”

He joined attorneys general Kris Mayes of Arizona, Raúl Torrez of New Mexico and Keith Ellison of Minnesota at a town hall in Phoenix earlier this week to gather stories from Arizonans affected by federal cuts. All four are part of the lawsuit and are planning future events.

The attorneys general are urging the federal court to rule that the mass firings are illegal, order that the employees be reinstated, put a stop to similar terminations in the future and identify all of the impacted employees.

As the Trump administration works to dismantle portions of the federal government, overstepping the constitutional authority of the Oval Office by curtailing funding allocated by Congress, the only meaningful pushback has come through lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions.

So far, judges have ordered the administration to temporarily halt or reverse its actions in some cases, but have sided with Trump in others.

In this lawsuit, the AGs argue that the firing of approximately 24,000 probationary government employees who worked for various federal departments violated laws and regulations regarding reductions in force, or RIFs, and are therefore illegal.

The rules and regulations surrounding RIFs, or the termination of federal employees due to restructuring or downsizing — not for performance problems — are outlined by the Office of Personnel Management, the same office that ordered the probationary employees be fired.

“This campaign has inflicted immense harms on tens of thousands of probationary employees and their families,” James Handley, assistant Maryland attorney general, wrote in the suit. “It has rendered them jobless without providing any advance notice that might have given them an opportunity to seek other employment or even budget to prepare for the loss of income. As a result, many affected employees and their families are struggling to make ends meet — to pay rent, buy groceries, and care for their loved ones.”

Federal laws and regulations require that employees terminated through a RIF be notified in writing at least 60 days prior to the end of their employment; that they be offered other open jobs within the government; and that veterans be given preference to retain their positions or be transferred.

Those notices to employees are supposed to include information about applying for unemployment benefits and social services and notices to states are to include the number of employees terminated, where they’re located and the date of their last day of work.

And when at least 50 employees within the same geographical area are fired at the same time through a RIF, federal law requires notification of the state or district government where those employees worked.

But the Trump administration did none of that, firing thousands of probationary federal employees — those who have been in their positions for one or two years — with no advanced notice.

The attorneys general acknowledged that they don’t know the exact number of federal probationary employees fired so far, but estimate that at least 6,000 were terminated from the IRS; 2,000 from the Department of Agriculture; 2,400 from the Department of Veterans Affairs; and 3,400 from the Forest Service, just to name a few of the impacted agencies.

The AGs challenging the mass layoffs claim that their state governments are being irreparably harmed by this process because they are required by federal law to provide support for workers who are subject to mass layoffs, through programs like job placement, training and administration of unemployment benefits.

The Congressionally approved RIF regulations are meant to help the employees, as well as the state agencies bound to assist them, prepare for job losses. Without advance notice, employees don’t have time to hunt for new jobs, and the state agencies can’t prepare for an influx of workers in need of assistance.

This can have a substantial impact on regional economies where large numbers of employees are fired at the same time, the attorneys general argued.

At the time the suit was filed, the attorneys general said that their employment agencies had received no notice of the firings at all, even to identify who was terminated and where they are located.

“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,” Handley wrote.

Some federal departments, such as the Department of Treasury, ordered agencies under their direction to fire the probationary employees “based on performance.” If the thousands of federal employees terminated in the first six weeks of Trump’s second term were actually fired because of poor performance, the government would not be required to follow the RIF requirements.

But federal employees fired for performance issues must be informed in writing of the specifics of their underperformance, and the Trump administration didn’t do that, either.

“Many of the agencies had already determined that their probationary employees were well qualified and performing their jobs well but were ordered to terminate them ‘based on performance’ anyway,” Handley wrote.

Far from providing specifics of supposed poor job performance, many of the employees received termination notices via form letters and emails containing errors, “and in many instances failed to include even the employee’s name or job title.”

The mass layoffs have already impacted state governments, putting a strain on their unemployment insurance and job assistance programs, causing longer wait times for other people who recently applied for benefits, the attorneys general claim.

Since Jan. 21, the day after Trump took office, Maryland alone has received unemployment benefit applications from more than 800 former federal employees, compared to 189 during the same time period last year.

If the federal government claims those employees were terminated for performance, or there is a conflict between the employee and employer over the reason for termination, the state is bound to investigate, which costs money and staff time.

“Many Plaintiff States anticipate a significant increase in these disputes given the Defendants’ chaotic and conflicting messaging around the reasons for terminating probationary employees,” Handley wrote.

Several states have put significant time and money into the creation of websites to inform fired federal employees of resources available to help them. Typically, state unemployment agencies would reach out to the terminated employees directly, but because the federal government didn’t provide notices, in many cases the states have no idea who those employees are.

The AGs also claim that the layoffs will cause a significant drop in income taxes collected by the states to the tune of millions of dollars — especially in Maryland, where about 250,000 federal employees live.

The states have also been harmed, the attorneys general claim, by the sudden termination of federal employees who served vital functions at the state level. Many of those were employed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention but worked at tribal and local health agencies helping to curb the spread of infectious diseases.

“The arbitrariness of Defendants’ actions and the indiscriminate nature of the terminations is underscored by the fact that Defendants have had to reverse the firings of individuals fulfilling certain critical functions, such as protecting nuclear weapons and addressing a significant public health threat,” Handley wrote.

Attorneys general from the District of Columbia, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‛i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin also joined the suit.