Federal Workforce Cuts Paused by Appeals Court Ruling \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal appeals court rejected a request to resume Trump’s federal workforce downsizing, keeping the cuts paused during a lawsuit. The 9th Circuit cited possible widespread impacts on services like food safety and veteran care. The legal battle now continues, with the Supreme Court appeal pending.
Quick Looks
- Appeals court upholds injunction halting federal job cuts.
- Judge Illston’s ruling cites need for Congressional approval.
- Cuts led by DOGE under Elon Musk remain frozen.
- Over 75,000 workers affected by deferred resignation program.
- Case brought by cities, unions, and Democracy Forward.
- Justice Department seeks Supreme Court intervention.
- Split decision highlights legal uncertainty over executive power.
- Downsizing effects include food safety, veteran healthcare services.
Deep Look
The Trump administration’s aggressive push to downsize the federal workforce suffered another major setback Friday as a U.S. appeals court refused to lift a judicial order pausing the cuts. In a 2–1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction, freezing implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at drastically shrinking the executive branch.
Judge Susan Illston’s Injunction Holds
The ruling preserves the temporary block issued by Judge Susan Illston, a San Francisco-based federal judge who found that the Trump administration’s actions may have overstepped legal boundaries. Her initial ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions, the cities of San Francisco and Chicago, and the watchdog group Democracy Forward.
In her decision, Illston emphasized that while presidents do have broad powers over executive agencies, significant restructuring of the federal workforce—especially one affecting tens of thousands of public employees—must involve Congressional authorization.
She ordered federal agencies to stop acting on Trump’s February executive order and a follow-up memo from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Massive Downsizing Already Underway
Although exact figures have not been confirmed, at least 75,000 federal employees are estimated to have accepted deferred resignations. Thousands more probationary workers were terminated or placed on administrative leave as part of the sweeping reorganization launched by the Trump-Musk team.
President Trump had appointed Elon Musk to lead the newly created DOGE, tasking the tech mogul with implementing massive efficiency reforms across the federal government. The cuts, according to the administration, are part of a broader mandate to “reinvent Washington” and remove bureaucratic bloat.
DOGE’s changes have disrupted operations across several key agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Veterans Affairs, and Environmental Protection Agency, with critics warning of degraded services ranging from food safety to veteran healthcare.
Legal Arguments and Future Implications
The Ninth Circuit’s majority ruling emphasized the potential widespread harm to public services and the lack of legislative oversight as reasons to maintain the block. One judge dissented, arguing that the president likely has legal authority to manage executive staffing, and that employees should appeal through civil service channels, not the courts.
The Justice Department had also requested an emergency intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that Illston’s injunction represented judicial overreach. That appeal remains pending.
Meanwhile, government lawyers insisted the executive order only set broad principles for agencies to follow and did not directly force dismissals—an argument Illston and now the appeals court found unconvincing.
Political and Institutional Fallout
Trump continues to defend the initiative as a necessary modernization effort and insists the executive order aligns with the voter mandate he received. Musk, in a previous statement, said DOGE’s strategy would save trillions in taxpayer dollars and “restore trust in public institutions.”
Critics, however, view the strategy as a politicized purge that undermines career civil service workers and violates legal norms. Unions and Democratic officials argue that the move sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the executive branch to bypass checks and balances in the name of efficiency.
Cities like San Francisco and Chicago, which joined the suit, expressed concern about disruptions to federal funding pipelines, public health services, and infrastructure programs as a result of uncoordinated staffing cuts.
What’s Next?
Judge Illston’s injunction will remain in place while the underlying legal challenge proceeds. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could become a defining moment in the debate over presidential power, especially regarding civil service management and the autonomy of federal agencies.
For now, the Department of Government Efficiency’s controversial workforce downsizing efforts remain in limbo, awaiting further judicial review.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.