Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration's plan to lay off federal workers
The ruling temporarily halts the White House's intentions to carry out government-wide layoffs across several agencies.
TroibNews 
A federal judge on Friday issued a temporary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order that allowed the administration to terminate tens of thousands of federal employees and to dissolve specific agencies altogether.
This ruling puts a halt to the White House's strategy for government-wide layoffs, which included anticipated reductions in staff at the State, Treasury, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and Social Security Administration departments.
Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston explained in her ruling that federal laws grant the president significant authority to reorganize the government and to mandate mass layoffs. However, she emphasized that the White House is also required to adhere to a comprehensive set of legal and procedural standards.
“The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch,” Illston, who was appointed by Clinton, stated.
Officials from both the White House and the Justice Department did not respond immediately to requests for comments.
Illston pointed out that Trump had previously attempted considerable government reorganization efforts in 2017 during his first term and had urged Congress to pass supporting legislation.
“Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation — as he did in his prior term of office,” the judge wrote.
During a hearing in San Francisco earlier that day, Illston indicated her intention to issue a temporary restraining order against Trump’s February executive order that mandated “large-scale reductions in force” throughout the government.
Her order prohibits any new reduction-in-force notifications from the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget until May 23, as well as the continuation of any existing notifications. The judge pointed out that layoffs were set to commence in less than two weeks at several agencies.
The order specifically references the departments of Energy, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, DOGE, OMB, OPM, the National Labor Relations Board, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and AmeriCorps.
During the hearing, Illston suggested that the White House’s actions seemed to be an effort to bypass the strict legal processes required for mass layoffs in the government.
“I think that is probably why the executive order said what it said, because there is some impatience with how slow that process can be,” she remarked. “But if the statutes provide for the process, then the process needs to be followed.”
The groups that filed suit against Trump’s order and related directives for the layoffs include some of the largest federal employees’ unions in the nation and several nonprofit organizations.
Federal laws permit the administration to lay off government workers based on organizational decisions rather than performance-related issues. These reductions in force typically necessitate that employees receive at least 60 days of advance notice, taking into account their veteran status, length of service, and the possibility of reassignment.
The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s directives to significantly reduce the size of the federal government through office closures, voluntary retirements, and reductions in force unlawfully sidestep these established procedures and violate the Constitution.
The lawyers representing the Trump administration contended on Friday that the unions’ request for a temporary block was submitted too late and claimed that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case, since federal workers can seek appeals regarding job actions through administrative bodies such as the Merit Systems Protection Board, which addresses workplace disputes. However, Illston countered this argument, noting that the Trump administration has not ensured that the Merit Systems Protection Board has enough members to make decisions and has not revealed its layoff plans to Congress or the plaintiffs.
Olivia Brown for TROIB News
This ruling puts a halt to the White House's strategy for government-wide layoffs, which included anticipated reductions in staff at the State, Treasury, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and Social Security Administration departments.
Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston explained in her ruling that federal laws grant the president significant authority to reorganize the government and to mandate mass layoffs. However, she emphasized that the White House is also required to adhere to a comprehensive set of legal and procedural standards.
“The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch,” Illston, who was appointed by Clinton, stated.
Officials from both the White House and the Justice Department did not respond immediately to requests for comments.
Illston pointed out that Trump had previously attempted considerable government reorganization efforts in 2017 during his first term and had urged Congress to pass supporting legislation.
“Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation — as he did in his prior term of office,” the judge wrote.
During a hearing in San Francisco earlier that day, Illston indicated her intention to issue a temporary restraining order against Trump’s February executive order that mandated “large-scale reductions in force” throughout the government.
Her order prohibits any new reduction-in-force notifications from the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget until May 23, as well as the continuation of any existing notifications. The judge pointed out that layoffs were set to commence in less than two weeks at several agencies.
The order specifically references the departments of Energy, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, DOGE, OMB, OPM, the National Labor Relations Board, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and AmeriCorps.
During the hearing, Illston suggested that the White House’s actions seemed to be an effort to bypass the strict legal processes required for mass layoffs in the government.
“I think that is probably why the executive order said what it said, because there is some impatience with how slow that process can be,” she remarked. “But if the statutes provide for the process, then the process needs to be followed.”
The groups that filed suit against Trump’s order and related directives for the layoffs include some of the largest federal employees’ unions in the nation and several nonprofit organizations.
Federal laws permit the administration to lay off government workers based on organizational decisions rather than performance-related issues. These reductions in force typically necessitate that employees receive at least 60 days of advance notice, taking into account their veteran status, length of service, and the possibility of reassignment.
The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s directives to significantly reduce the size of the federal government through office closures, voluntary retirements, and reductions in force unlawfully sidestep these established procedures and violate the Constitution.
The lawyers representing the Trump administration contended on Friday that the unions’ request for a temporary block was submitted too late and claimed that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case, since federal workers can seek appeals regarding job actions through administrative bodies such as the Merit Systems Protection Board, which addresses workplace disputes. However, Illston countered this argument, noting that the Trump administration has not ensured that the Merit Systems Protection Board has enough members to make decisions and has not revealed its layoff plans to Congress or the plaintiffs.
Olivia Brown for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
