US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, San Francisco, front entrance: As with previous challenges to its actions, the Trump administration argued that the case should have been brought through the FLRA or MSPB channels, but like judges in several of those cases, Judge Illston ruled that the dispute can be heard in federal court. Image: iStock.com/JasonDoiy
By: FEDweek StaffA federal court has ordered that federal agencies stop conducting RIFs and reorganizations under a Trump administration executive order and follow-up guidance, a ban that the administration immediately appealed.
The temporary restraining order issued May 9 by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California blocks further actions for 14 days while she considers further steps. The case, brought by a coalition of unions including the AFGE, non-profit organizations and local governments, is the most wide-reaching of numerous legal challenges to the administration’s efforts to cut federal employment in general and to abolish or virtually abolish various individual agencies.
“Federal courts should not micromanage the vast federal workforce, but courts must sometimes act to preserve the proper checks and balances between the three branches of government,” Judge Illston wrote, concluding that “the President has neither constitutional nor, at this time, statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch.”
“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. Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office,” she added.
The order temporarily halts further actions under the February executive order and the later OMB and OPM guidance, including the “execution of any existing RIF notices (including final separation of employees), issuance of any further RIF notices, placement of employees on administrative leave, and transfer of functions or programs.”
The order applies to OMB, OPM, DOGE, USDA, Commerce, Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation, VA, AmeriCorps, EPA, GSA, NLRB, NSF, SBA, and SSA. The order further “will provide relief beyond the named parties, but to do otherwise is impracticable and unworkable, particularly where the agencies’ RIF plans largely remain secret,” it says.
The ruling comes as RIF notices have been issued at many of those agencies while many other agencies are making preparations for significant layoffs and reorganizations under the executive order and guidance.
As with previous challenges to its actions, the Trump administration argued that the case should have been brought through the FLRA or MSPB channels, but like judges in several of those cases, Judge Illston ruled that the dispute can be heard in federal court.
Some of the plaintiffs, such as the nonprofits, do not have access to those channels and the issues are “far afield” from the jurisdiction of those agencies, she wrote, “instead touching on fundamental questions of executive authority and separation of powers.”
She wrote that “As history demonstrates, the President may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress . . . This is not an instance of the President using his inherent authority to exercise general administrative control of those executing the laws, because Congress has passed no agency reorganization law for the President to execute. Congress may choose to do so. But as of today, Congress has not.”
She added that “no statute gives OPM, OMB, or DOGE the authority to direct other federal agencies to engage in large-scale terminations, restructuring, or elimination of itself. Such action is far outside the bounds of any authority that Congress vested in OPM or OMB, and, as noted, DOGE has no statutory authority whatsoever.”
In issuing the restraining order, Judge Illston found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their complaint, that they would suffer irreparable harm without one, and that the balance of the public interest is in favor of one.
The Justice Department filed its appeal with the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court, which refused to block an injunction in a previous case, involving the firing of probationary employees, arising from the same district court and involving similar legal issues. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the injunction in that case.
Several Federal Agencies Disavow Union Contracts, with More Likely to Follow
‘Only High Performers’ Should Receive Awards, Agencies Told
OPM Quietly Ends Its Role in ‘Five Things’ Reporting
COVID Vaccination Data to Be Deleted from Federal Personnel Records
Numbers, Impact of Federal Job Cuts Draw Increasing Scrutiny
OPM Limits Length of Paid Leave in Reorgs—Starting Next Year
See also,
What to Know About the New Federal Application Process
Top 10 Provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill of Interest to Federal Employees
A Pre-RIF Checklist for Every Federal Employee, From a Federal Employment Attorney
Work Longer or Take the FERS Supplement Now: Which is Better?
