A federal judge has halted the Trump administration’s future mass firings or major reorganizations of multiple agencies, as ordered by an executive order in February.
Senior District Judge Susan Illston granted a temporary restraining order sought by federal employee unions, local governments, and other organizations that rely on federal services, alleging that the administration was acting illegally.
The judge’s two-week order prohibits the administration from approving or implementing plans known as Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans, or ARRPs, for mass layoffs and shrinking or eliminating entire agency components.
She is also suspending any orders from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, that would reduce programs or staff in accordance with Trump’s executive order and related directives.
Illston, a former President Bill Clinton appointee who sits in San Francisco, stated at a hearing earlier in the day that presidents have the authority to change the government, but that when it comes to large-scale reorganizations, presidents “must do so with the cooperation of Congress.”
The unions specifically targeted DOGE’s role in the process, claiming in court filings that the Elon Musk-led initiative was acting “largely in secret” to force agency spending and personnel cuts by “refusing to reveal” the plans “to employees, their labor representatives, the public, or Congress.”
According to court filings, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, two agencies central to DOGE’s mission, issued a joint directive requiring agencies to submit reduction and reorganization plans in two stages, due in mid-March and mid-April, with OMB finalizing the layoff plans.
Illston’s order is one of the most significant legal setbacks Trump and DOGE have encountered in their efforts to dramatically reduce the federal bureaucracy.
Across the federal government, the administration has been implementing RIFS (reductions in force) that would terminate tens of thousands of employees and close entire agency offices, with little regard for how the layoffs would affect an agency’s ability to meet its statutory obligations.
The case before Illston could soon go to the Supreme Court, as the Justice Department has indicated that it wants to appeal it quickly – though the judge denied a DOJ attorney’s request for a procedural maneuver that would allow the administration to appeal her order immediately.
In a 42-page opinion issued Friday night, Illston stated, “No statute gives OPM, OMB, or DOGE the authority to direct other federal agencies to engage in large-scale terminations, restructuring, or elimination of itself.”
While she will review the lawsuit’s merits in the coming weeks, she determined that “it was necessary to temporarily enjoin further implementation of those plans because they flow from likely illegal directives.”
The order includes significant cuts to more than a dozen agencies, including Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Treasury, State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
It also requires the administration to submit the reduction plans by Tuesday and to report to the judge on its efforts to comply with her order by Tuesday.
In a statement, the challengers stated that they are “gratified by the court’s decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds.”
“With every move this President makes, we are holding him accountable in court, and judges of all stripes are recognizing and defending the rule of law,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represents the challengers.
CNN has contacted the White House for comment.
DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton argued Friday that the unions’ case had a number of procedural flaws, including a delay in filing it, given that the executive order in question was signed on February 11.
He contended that courts lacked the authority to oversee challenges to the reduction plans because they were part of the deliberative process rather than a final agency action.
Danielle Leonard, an attorney for plaintiffs, countered that any delay was the administration’s fault for failing to be forthcoming with its plans, and that the administration was “trying to insulate from judicial review” a “pretty profoundly unlawful set of instructions.”
The judge mentioned that some senators had asked the administration to provide its layoff plans. She inquired with the Justice Department about whether the administration had responded to that request. Hamilton refused to respond, claiming it was irrelevant to the case.
