A federal judge temporarily blocked the mass layoffs the Trump administration is conducting during the government shutdown, arguing that what the government is doing “is both illegal and is an excess of authority and is arbitrary and capricious.”
“The evidence suggests that the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management have taken advantage of the lapse in government spending, in government functioning to assume that all bets are off,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in a Wednesday court hearing over whether the court should temporarily block, via a temporary restraining order, the government’s mass layoffs.
Illston ruled from the stand that the government is barred “from taking any action to issue any reduction-in-force notices to federal employees in any program, project or activity” that includes members of the unions that brought the lawsuit. (It’s unclear how long Illston’s temporary restraining order will last. She said she would file a written order later in the day with more details.)
A group of unions — including the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — sued the administration when the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo directing agencies to prepare for RIFs. Attorneys for the unions argued that the layoff plans violated federal law.
The unions in the case were already going into potentially friendly ground when they headed to court on Wednesday: Illston in May blocked the Trump administration’s previous mass layoffs, arguing that the executive branch needed to coordinate with Congress to make the cuts. The Supreme Court, however, put that ruling on hold.
Illston said she was “inclined” to temporarily block the layoffs as soon as the hearing started, before any of the parties spoke. Once the Trump administration’s counsel took the stand, a fiery exchange occurred between the judge and Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Hedges.
“Your honor, before this court even gets to the merits, it can reject the lawsuit and this TRO motion because the plaintiffs have not shown irreparable harm,” Hedges started, before being quickly interrupted by Illston.
“I think it would be more productive for you to address the merits,” Illston said, later adding: “You’ve chosen not to talk about it, but I’m asking you to talk about it.”
Hedges responded by saying, “We didn’t brief it, and I’m not prepared to discuss the underlying merits.”
“This hatchet is falling on the heads of employees all across the nation, and you’re not even prepared to address whether that’s legal?” Illston replied.
Ultimately, Hedges reiterated several procedural arguments about why Illston should not consider granting the restraining order.
When she finished, the judge asked again: “I just want to be clear, you’re not making any statement concerning the government’s position on the merits of this, whether these RIFs are legal or not?”
“Not today, your honor,” Hedges responded.
Illston’s order will stop layoffs in their tracks, at least temporarily. Just before the hearing, OMB Director Russ Vought, the architect behind the layoff plans, said that the White House is planning far more than the over 4,000 layoffs it has directed.
“That’s just a snapshot, and I think it’ll get much higher. And we’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout the shutdown,” Vought said on “The Charlie Kirk Show.” “I think it’ll probably end up being north of 10,000.”
The Justice Department seemed to expect that the White House planned for more layoffs. Hedges asked Illston that if she did issue a temporary restraining order, it should be limited only to the approximately 4,000 layoffs the administration has conducted and not any future ones. Illston ultimately disagreed — her order prohibits any new RIF notices for the time being.
The Trump administration’s guidance on conducting mass layoffs during a government shutdown has been plagued by confusion.
Just days after the government started issuing RIF notices, officials admitted they laid off more people than they intended. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, laid off 1,760 people instead of the 982 they planned. The department’s head of human resources said the mistake was due to “data discrepancies and processing errors.”
Danielle Leonard, attorney for the law firm Altshuler Berzon LLP, which is representing the unions in the case, challenged the administration’s argument that “errors” caused the discrepancies in layoffs.
“If anyone believes that’s just a coding error, what happened at HHS over the weekend, as opposed to a decision by OMB to fire people that include people who are actively working on measles outbreaks … someone realized what a poor decision that was,” Leonard said during the hearing. “That’s what happened.”
Illston directed Leonard to coordinate with Hedges to schedule a hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction, which could result in a stronger ruling to block the government’s mass layoffs, should be issued.
The judge also ordered the administration to update the complete number of RIFs that have been issued, including those that are planned to be issued, as well as to file a declaration from government officials stating that they are complying with her court order.
Democracy Forward, which is also representing the unions in the case, celebrated the judge’s order.
“The president thinks his government shutdown is distracting people from his lawlessness, but yet again the people are holding him accountable,” Skye Perryman, the group’s CEO and president, said in a statement. “Civil servants do the work of the people, and playing games with their livelihoods is cruel and unlawful. We are gratified by the court’s decision and will continue to go to court to stop abuses of power and protect the American people.”
This article has been updated with a comment from Democracy Forward.