Judge says she is inclined to further pause layoffs at most major agencies

A federal judge on Thursday indicated she will issue a longer-term injunction that bans the Trump administration from implementing layoffs, suggesting those actions were unlawful and in violation of the Constitution.

President Trump, the White House and the Department of Government Efficiency have all exceeded their authorities in requiring agencies to develop and implement layoff plans, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said. She made her remarks at the outset of a hearing in San Francisco on a lawsuit challenging the reductions in force and one day ahead of the scheduled expiration of a temporary freeze she previously placed on the layoffs. 

“I do believe the evidence before the court suggests that plaintiffs will likely succeed on the merits of their claims,” Illston said. “I believe injunctive relief, preliminary at this stage, remains necessary to preserve the status quo and protect the power of the legislative branch.”

She added the evidence strongly suggested that “the recent actions of the executive branch usurp the constitutional powers of Congress.” 

Her existing temporary restraining order, which she earlier this month put in place for two weeks, prevented agencies from implementing their Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans. Those plans were required by the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget, as well as President Trump’s executive order that precipitated them. It applied to OMB and OPM, as well as the departments of Agriculture Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to AmeriCorps, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.

Illston said every large-scale government reorganization effort in recent memory, such as the one Trump is undertaking, has required congressional approval. 

“The president may not initiate a large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress to hold otherwise would be telling nine presidents and congresses that they misunderstood the Constitution,” Illston said. “I do not have that level of self confidence.” 

Much of the remainder of the hearing concerned the scope of Illston’s potential preliminary injunction, though attorneys for both sides also debated the merits of the case. 

The Trump administration has defended the layoffs by arguing the president did not issue mandates for specific actions and OMB and OPM only provided guidance for how agencies should conduct RIFs. Andrew Bernie, a Justice Department attorney representing the government on Thursday, said OMB and OPM do not view their roles as “substantively second guessing agencies determinations.” He added the RIF blueprints were just planning documents and agencies did not have to follow through on them. 

Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the plaintiffs, countered that her team had presented evidence of OMB and OPM overruling agencies that submitted first drafts of their RIF plans. 

“They are saying what to cut, when to cut, where to cut,” Leonard said. 

The Trump administration has largely complied with Illston’s order, though some reorganization actions—such as the Interior Department’s efforts to consolidate functions—have continued. Agencies have also moved forward with the re-firings of employees in their probationary periods. Some agencies have notified employees subject to layoffs that those efforts were paused. 

Going forward, Bernie suggested if Illston were to issue an injunction it should be limited to only employees who are part of the unions bringing the cases. Illston suggested she was looking to expand her order to apply retroactively to benefit those already laid off, though she said she may immediately pause enforcement of that part of the order so employees do not “ping pong” back and forth. 

The judge added she could require agencies to reinstate to full working status those who have received RIF notices but are still on paid administrative leave waiting for their terminations to take effect. Agencies generally must give 60 days notice before RIFs are finalized. 

Doing so, she said, “makes a lot of sense, because it doesn't make sense to have employees sitting around not working.” 

The Trump administration has already appealed the judge’s restraining order to both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, though neither entity has issued a ruling. 

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, who has helped orchestrate the Trump administration’s federal workforce reduction efforts, told reporters on Thursday all of the RIFs across government were conducted legally and predicted the administration would ultimately prevail. 

“They've been an effort to scale down the federal workforce with care, with wisdom about what's necessary to statutorily conduct and operate agencies,” Vought said. “And I think at the end of the day, wherever they're at, they're going to be successful when they get to the Supreme Court." 

The administration has also faced more targeted setbacks: on Thursday, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Education Department from carrying out its mass layoffs. Other judges have paused RIFs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Institute of Museum and Library Studies. The legality of layoffs at the Health and Human Services Department is currently being litigated.