Court Halts Trump’s Federal Overhaul

A federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's sweeping overhaul of the federal government. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee, sided with a group of unions, non-profits, and local governments and blocked large-scale mass layoffs known as "reductions in force" for 14 days. The ruling came after a hearing in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments. “As history demonstrates, the President may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,” said Illston. She agreed with the plaintiffs, asserting that Supreme Court precedent makes clear the president does have authority to seek changes at agencies, but must do so in lawful ways. "[T]o make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies," she wrote in her ruling, "any president must enlist the help of his co-equal branch and partner, the Congress."

The overhaul began in February, when President Trump directed government agencies to work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to identify targets for mass layoffs. As part of the administration’s restructuring plans, agencies were urged to eliminate duplicative roles, unnecessary management layers, and non-critical jobs, while automating routine tasks, closing regional field offices, and reducing the use of outside contractors. In response, Illston issued a temporary restraining order pausing further implementation of Trump’s February 11 executive order and subsequent administrative memos instructing agencies how to comply. Her order applies to 20 federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Government Efficiency. It also pauses the issuance of future RIF notices and the placement of additional employees on administrative leave. 

Illston noted that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on some of the claims in their lawsuit, filed on April 28, which alleged that Trump exceeded his authority. It also alleged that the Office of Management and Budget, DOGE, and the Office of Personnel Management violated administrative law and acted beyond their powers. She emphasized that the temporary restraining order is necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm (Reuters). Supporting their case, the plaintiffs submitted more than 1,000 pages of evidence and 62 sworn declarations. Illston highlighted that, for example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Pittsburgh had 221 of its 222 workers terminated. She cited similar mass layoffs at the Farm Service Agency, Social Security Administration, and Head Start, which supports early childhood learning. 

As Illston wrote, "The Court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families, and communities."

A statement from the coalition of plaintiffs added, “The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation.” They continued, “Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government, [and] laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that” (Reuters.) Looking ahead, Illston scheduled a hearing for May 22 to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.

Read More Here:

• Andrea Hsu, NPR

• Staff, The Guardian

• Staff, Reuters