Federal judge temporarily blocks further Trump-backed mass firings across gov't

The Friday order from Judge Susan Illston is in effect for the next two weeks, with further arguments set for May 22. [Update: DOJ is appealing.]

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Friday night blocking the Trump administration from implementing broad staffing cuts and other efforts to dismantle wide swaths of the federal government for the next two weeks.

“It is the prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government. But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his co-equal branch and partner, the Congress,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in the decision. “Federal courts should not micromanage the vast federal workforce, but courts must sometimes act to preserve the proper checks and balances between the three branches of government.“

Illston, a Clinton appointee who will have served on the Northern District of California bench for 30 years later this month, issued the ruling following a Friday hearing in the case brought by unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments to challenge the “large-scale reductions in force“ set in motion by President Donald Trump’s February 11 executive order purporting to “Implement[] The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.“

“The Court notes … that its order does not prevent the President from exercising his Article II powers, it prevents him from exercising Congress’ Article I powers,” Illston wrote at one point in the 42-page ruling, a reference to the portions of the Constitution laying out executive and legislative powers, respectively.

As detailed in the ruling, Trump’s executive order was followed by a joint memo from the heads of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management on February 26 implementing Trump’s order. That, in turn, was to be followed by “Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans (“ARRP”),“ which were required, under the February 26 memo, to be submitted “to OMB and OPM for review and approval“ in two phases in March and April.

The plaintiffs challenge Trump’s order; the related actions of OMB, OPM, and the non-department Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE); and the agency ARRPs.

Although Illston lays out a meticulous case for her ruling, the bottom line is that she found that, with his actions — specifically, with these actions being taken without congressional authorization — Trump likely has gone too far.

“Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the President’s Executive Order 14210 is ultra vires” — or beyond the president’s legal authority, in other words illegal — “as the President has neither constitutional nor, at this time, statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch,” Illston wrote.

The case, filed on April 28, is led by lawyers from Altshuler Berzon LLP and Democracy Forward, with support from many other lawyers due to the broad array of plaintiffs.

In issuing her TRO, Illston blocked any further implementation of the executive order for the next two weeks and also set forth a schedule such that a preliminary injunction motion can be briefed over the next two weeks, with a hearing set for 10:30 a.m. PT May 22.

Additionally, she ordered the government to turn over all defendant agencies’ ARRPs by Tuesday:

This, Illston wrote, was necessary because “the Court requires more information to evaluate the individual ARRPs and what roles OMB, OPM, and DOGE have played in shaping them.“

[Update, 1:35 a.m.: The Justice Department filed a notice before the end of the day in California that it is appealing the TRO — an order that is not generally appealable — to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.]

The opinion addressed a number of key questions that have come up in related litigation across the country over the past months.

Illston specifically called out DOJ’s argument that the plaintiffs waited too long to sue.

Illston found that at least some of the plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims and that the Trump administration is wrong in its argument that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 mean the district court should not be hearing this case — an argument that has been successful in getting some challenges dismissed. In addition to explaining why she thinks that argument is wrong even as to the union plaintiffs, Illston went on to note that there also are other plaintiffs here — the nonprofit organizations and local governments — that would not be able to receive relief from those laws.

As to the fundamental question of the legality of Trump’s action, Illston noted, carefully citing a Heritage Foundation legal memo, “the President may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress.“

As to OPM, OMB, and DOGE, Illston noted:

• “Congress vested the Director of OPM with a number of functions, none of which include the termination of employees from, or the restructuring of, other federal agencies outside of OPM.“

• “None of the statutes authorize OMB to terminate employees outside of OMB or to order other agencies to downsize, nor do defendants point to any such authority in their brief.“

• “As plaintiffs rightly note, DOGE ‘has no statutory authority at all.’”

As such, Illston also concluded that the challengers are likely to succeed in their claim that OPM, OMB, and DOGE are acting ultra vires here.

Illston also found that the memo and ARRPs likely constitute final agency action, a key requirement for Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims that the plaintiffs also have brought. Although she reserved a ruling for now on some of the APA claims, she did find the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in a key claim challenging the “approval” of the ARRPs:

Ultimately, Illston set forth the following broad order, essentially stopping all RIFs and other changes coming out of the Feb. 11 executive order, the OMB/OPM memo, and the ARRPs for the next two weeks:

Illston did not hide from the broad scope of her TRO, but she did seek to explain it, writing:

The Court acknowledges that its temporary restraining order as detailed below will provide relief beyond the named parties, but to do otherwise is impracticable and unworkable, particularly where the agencies’ RIF plans largely remain secret. To be clear, the Court has not ruled on whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their APA claims regarding individual agency ARRPs, but finds it necessary to temporarily enjoin further implementation of those plans because they flow from likely illegal directives.

Finally, and learning from the preceding 109 days, Illston ordered the Trump administration to “file a declaration(s) verifying that they have complied with this Order, including serving a copy of this order on every defendant agency head, and detailing what additional steps, if any, they have taken to comply” by 3 p.m. PT Tuesday.