A federal judge on Friday called for a two-week pause in the Trump administration’s plans for mass layoffs and program closures, barring two dozen agencies from moving forward with the largest phase of the president’s downsizing efforts, which the judge said was illegal without congressional authorization.
Of all the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s vision to dramatically scale back the form and function of the federal government, this one is poised to have the broadest effect. Most of the agencies have yet to announce their downsizing plans, but employees across the government have been anxiously waiting for announcements that have been expected for weeks.
Ruling just hours after an emergency hearing on Friday, Judge Susan Illston of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California said the government’s effort to lay off workers and shut down offices and programs created an urgent threat to scores of critical services.
Congress set up a specific process for the federal government to reorganize itself. The unions and organizations behind the lawsuit have argued that the president does not have the authority to make those decisions without the legislative branch.
Judge Illston noted that process requires consultation with Congress on any plan to abolish or transfer part of an agency.
“It is the prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government,” she wrote in a 42-page order. “But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his coequal branch and partner, the Congress.”
Judge Illston listed services that could disappear if the offices that administer them were wiped out, including disaster relief funds for farmers after a flood, in-person appointments for Social Security recipients to discuss their benefits, workplace safety inspections in mines and grants that support kindergarten programs.
The scenario evoked what already happened at the Department of Health and Human Services — when mass layoffs caused major disruptions to programs — but on a larger scale. The deep cuts there indirectly hampered programs such as one that helps low-income families afford heating bills, and another that helps states track rates of chronic disease and gun violence.
While unions and other organizations have sued the federal government over other personnel actions, including indiscriminately firing thousands of probationary workers earlier this year, this is the first time such a broad coalition came together to challenge the administration’s actions. The plaintiffs in the ambitious lawsuit included labor unions, nonprofits and six cities and counties — including Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco and Harris County, Texas, home to Houston.
“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,” the coalition said in a joint statement. “Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government — laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that.”
The lawsuit, which was filed last week, is the latest in a progression of challenges that have all focused on the erosion of the federal civil service since President Trump took office.
It chronicled a steady effort to gut agencies in recent months, which it said has not only harmed tens of thousands of federal workers and their families, but also the residents of the cities and counties involved, as critical health services, veterans’ benefits, environmental protections and disaster relief assistance have lapsed or been thrown into doubt.
At particular issue are the looming “reductions in force,” which represent the biggest piece of Mr. Trump’s government downsizing efforts. Earlier this year, his administration fired thousands of probationary employees. But the current phase is expected to cut hundreds of thousands.
Agencies were given guidance and a brief timeline to complete plans for this reorganization earlier this year. The government has done reorganizations this way before, but never on such a huge scale and on such a short timeline.
By April 14, agencies were to send their final plans to the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget, which were providing guidance. Some agencies announced initial layoffs even before the deadline.
The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, fired 10,000 employees in early April. In some cases, it shuttered entire offices and shut down programs. Employees were placed on administrative leave and locked out of their equipment immediately.
Employees at other agencies have been dreading the upcoming announcements and have received minimal information about who will be affected. In order to meet the White House’s demands for cuts, some agencies have been offering resignation incentives, which are currently being reviewed and processed. The additional reductions in force will be decided after agency leaders have a better sense of where there are vacancies after the pressured resignations and early retirements.
To supplement the lawsuit, lawyers filed some 1,300 pages of sworn statements from local health providers, housing inspectors, law enforcement and firefighters, and others documenting the ways cuts to federal government have impacted their life and work.
During Friday’s hearing, Eric Hamilton, an attorney from the Justice Department, contended that the coalition of groups behind the lawsuit was legally problematic, because the unionized workers facing layoffs and the nonprofits and local governments bearing the brunt of federal services being cut were in separate “categories,” with obviously distinct harms.
Mr. Hamilton added that Mr. Trump’s power to reorganize federal agencies is expansive and that the executive orders he had signed mandating changes were generally beyond the authority of the court to review.
Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the groups that sued, said the Trump administration’s vision was to fundamentally degrade the services that Congress funds agencies to carry out, raising a profound separation of powers conflict, as Congress set up a specific process for the federal government to reorganize itself.
“There’s a presumption of regularity that used to exist with respect to the government’s actions that I think they need to re-earn,” she said.
Ms. Leonard said the Trump administration has never been able to point to any specific authority through which the president could seize that power from Congress. And she said that the government has consistently offered competing and contradictory explanations of why Mr. Trump can authorize the massive restructuring without Congress.
“It’s an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail,” she said.
