Court Blocks Mass Layoffs in Federal Government \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked large-scale layoffs in the federal workforce ordered by President Trump. The ruling halts implementation of executive actions aiming to restructure government agencies without congressional approval. The order comes amid multiple legal challenges from labor unions and major U.S. cities.
Quick Looks
- U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary restraining order Friday halting parts of President Trump’s federal downsizing plan.
- The ruling halts actions tied to a February executive order and a memo from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
- The court found that Congress must be involved in large-scale federal workforce changes.
- Plaintiffs include San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
- Departments affected include HHS, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Labor, Interior, and others.
- Trump tapped Elon Musk to oversee the downsizing campaign through DOGE.
- HHS had already announced plans to lay off 10,000 employees and consolidate operations.
- Tens of thousands have already resigned or been fired, including many probationary workers.
- Government lawyers argued the order was merely guidance, not enforceable policy.
- The order lasts 14 days and may be extended depending on the outcome of further proceedings.
Deep Look
In a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump’s sweeping plan to slash the size of the federal workforce, a California judge on Friday blocked further layoffs and restructuring efforts, declaring the administration’s approach likely unconstitutional.
The ruling, issued by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, grants a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the White House’s plan to dramatically reduce federal personnel across multiple agencies. The move comes amid mounting backlash over the administration’s use of executive authority to unilaterally remake the federal government — what Trump has repeatedly referred to as a “bloated bureaucracy.”
A Plan Without Congress
At the center of the case is a February executive order signed by Trump, followed by a memo jointly issued by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — led by Elon Musk — and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). These directives set in motion mass layoffs, reorganization plans, and centralization of departments, beginning with agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which had already announced plans to eliminate 10,000 jobs.
Judge Illston, a Clinton appointee, ruled that these actions overstepped presidential authority.
“The president must do so in lawful ways,” Illston said. “He must do so with the cooperation of Congress — the Constitution is structured that way.”
Her decision reflects the plaintiffs’ argument that Trump’s administration sidestepped legislative oversight in pursuit of ideological restructuring. Plaintiffs include major U.S. cities, national labor unions, and advocacy organizations, all of whom argue that the layoffs and policy shifts are both unilateral and unlawful.
Agencies Affected by the TRO
The restraining order halts downsizing activities across multiple federal agencies and departments already in motion, including:
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Department of Labor
- Department of Energy
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of the Interior
- Department of State
- Department of the Treasury
- Social Security Administration (SSA)
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- National Science Foundation (NSF)
While the TRO does not mandate rehiring of workers already let go, it does prevent further implementation of the downsizing strategy while the court assesses the constitutionality of the executive action.
Thousands Affected, Legal Pressure Mounts
The Trump administration’s restructuring campaign has already impacted tens of thousands of federal workers. Officials have acknowledged that at least 75,000 employees opted for deferred resignation, and thousands more probationary workers have been dismissed in recent months.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other plaintiffs are also pursuing a separate legal challenge targeting the legality of firing probationary workers en masse. In that case, Judge William Alsup ordered reinstatement of those workers — a ruling later blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs in the current case — which include San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and nonprofits like the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Taxpayer Rights, and the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks — argue that the administration’s executive guidance was implemented as binding policy, despite claims that it was merely suggestive.
“They are not waiting for these planning documents,” said Danielle Leonard, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney. “They’re not asking for approval, and they’re not waiting for it.”
Trump’s Justification and Musk’s Role
President Trump has argued that the layoffs reflect a voter mandate to ‘drain the swamp’ and improve government efficiency. He appointed billionaire Elon Musk to spearhead the efforts through DOGE, drawing both praise from conservative voters and fierce criticism from federal worker advocates.
The administration contends that the executive order was non-binding and intended to encourage long-term reform through legislative engagement. But in practice, the guidance prompted swift layoffs and the dismantling of federal operations, especially in agencies targeted for downsizing.
“It expressly invites comments and proposals for legislative engagement,” said Eric Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general. “It is setting out guidance.”
But the judge disagreed, ruling that such drastic action must be authorized by Congress, not simply enacted through executive fiat.
What Comes Next?
Judge Illston’s restraining order expires in 14 days, but she may extend it depending on the progress of the case. A preliminary injunction hearing is expected in the coming weeks, which could lead to a longer-term block of Trump’s reorganization plans.
Legal analysts say the ruling represents an important moment in the ongoing battle over executive power vs. legislative authority, particularly in matters affecting employment, public services, and the structure of government itself.
Even if the TRO is lifted, the broader constitutional questions remain — and they may ultimately require intervention from higher federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Court Blocks Mass Court Blocks Mass
You must Register or Login to post a comment.