Judge Extends Block on Trump’s Federal Worker Layoffs

Judge Illston, who sits on the federal court in San Francisco, also barred agencies from implementing any orders by the Elon Musk-led DOGE to cut programs or staff in connection with an executive order signed by President Trump in February that seeks to transform the executive branch. However, she wrote In her 51-page order granting a preliminary injunction that the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, hence a preliminary injunction to pause large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations in the meantime. She granted a two-week reprieve May 9th, which halted the Trump administration’s layoffs and that any federal employees transferred onto administrative leave should be moved back to the status they held before being placed on such leave, though this is subject to any appeals being carried out “Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed…But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that — by statute — they must carry out,” wrote Illston.

AFGE v. Trump Lawsuit

A coalition of local governments, nonprofit organizations and labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal employee union representing more than 800,000 members, along with other labor unions including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, filed a lawsuit last month, arguing that Trump’s  Feb. 11 executive order is illegal. “The President does not possess authority to reorganize, downsize, or otherwise transform the agencies of the federal government, unless and until Congress authorizes such action,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in the lawsuit, and reported by the Washington Post. His Executive Order 14210 exceeds his lawful authority by directing the restructuring of entire agencies, the elimination of programs and functions, and the drastic reduction of the number of employees within every agency, all without any Congressional authorization.

Plaintiffs in the case also include the cities of San Francisco, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties in California; Chicago and Baltimore, Harris County, Texas; and King County, Washington. Nonprofits include the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Public Health Association and the Center for Taxpayer Rights. The coalition says this is “the largest and most significant challenge to Trump’s authority to remake the government” without Congress’s approval. AFGE President Everett Kelley said that “the Trump administration’s reckless attempt to dismantle our government without congressional approval threatens vital services Americans depend on every day — from caring for veterans and safeguarding public health, to protecting our environment and maintaining national security.”

Judge Illston’s Decision

The Justice Department on May 23 informed the court that it will be asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to review Illston’s decision, reported CBS News. Illston also wrote in her ruling that, while presidents have the authority to seek changes to federal agencies, and nine presidents have over the last century sought to reorganize the executive branch, they have to obtain approval from Congress. “Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed,” the judge said. “But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that — by statute — they must carry out. Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.”

Good News for Plaintiffs

Judge Illston said that plaintiffs in the case are likely to succeed on their claim that Mr. Trump’s executive order usurps Congress’s constitutional powers and exceeds his authority. “Put simply, in this case, defendants want the court to either declare that nine presidents and twenty-one Congresses did not properly understand the separation of powers, or ignore how the executive branch is implementing large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations. The court can do neither,” she wrote.