The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to block a lower court order requiring the government to rehire thousands of probationary employees dismissed as part of the president’s efforts to streamline the federal bureaucracy.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the lower court’s rulings had caused “chaos” at federal agencies by overstepping into their decision-making processes. She urged the justices to allow the employees to remain off the payroll while the broader legal challenges surrounding the firings are resolved.

“Each day the preliminary injunction remains in effect subjects the Executive Branch to judicial micromanagement of its day-to-day operations,” Harris told the high court.

The case has swiftly become a high-profile showdown over President Trump’s bold agenda, directly challenging his authority to dismiss federal workers in large numbers. U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in Northern California, has been notably confrontational with the Trump administration, coming close to accusing them of dishonesty during the proceedings.

“I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth,” Alsup told the government in one hearing, calling the situation a “sham.”

The firings of tens of thousands of probationary employees are at the center of the legal dispute, along with the question of whether a president, as head of the Executive Branch, has the authority to manage the agencies and personnel that fall under his purview.

Alsup determined that the firings were carried out under the direction of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which he ruled does not have the authority to make such decisions.

While OPM encouraged agencies to assess their probationary employees and determine who to retain, the administration argues that the actual firing decisions were made by the agencies themselves. Probationary employees who had been in their roles for less than a year or, in some cases, less than two years at certain positions were considered more vulnerable targets.

Trump officials argued that these employees lacked the years of experience crucial to their agencies and, as probationary workers, did not have full civil service protections, the Washington Times reported.