SAN FRANCISCO – A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected the Trump administration's attempt to proceed with widespread layoffs of federal workers and a major restructuring of government agencies. This decision leaves a lower court's injunction, which had halted the extensive overhaul, firmly in place.
The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals means that, for the foreseeable future, the Trump administration cannot move forward with its plans to shed tens of thousands of federal jobs or close numerous government offices and programs.
The appellate court's decision supports an earlier May 22 ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco. Judge Illston had initially blocked large-scale layoffs across approximately 20 federal agencies, siding with a coalition of unions, nonprofits, and municipalities who argued that a president requires congressional authorization to restructure agencies in such a manner.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit denied the Trump administration's request to pause Judge Illston's ruling while an appeal—a process that could take months—is resolved. It is now anticipated that the administration will appeal this latest decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to temporarily halt the lower court's order.
The White House promptly criticized the appeals court's decision, issuing a statement asserting, "The Trump administration will immediately fight back against this absurd order. A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch." Conversely, the coalition of plaintiffs lauded the ruling, stating, "The Ninth Circuit’s decision today rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganization of the federal government."
The appeals court's majority opinion, penned by Judge William Fletcher (a Bill Clinton appointee) and joined by Judge Lucy Koh (a Joe Biden appointee), stated that the administration had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if the lower court's order remained in effect. The court further indicated that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their broader legal challenge. "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president’s supervisory powers under the Constitution," the majority opinion concluded. Dissenting, Judge Consuelo Callahan (a George W. Bush appointee) argued that the administration was likely to win its appeal and had indeed suffered irreparable harm from the policy being blocked.
The Government Overhaul Initiative Judge Illston’s initial ruling represented the most significant legal setback against the government overhaul efforts, which have been spearheaded by Trump ally Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla. In addition to blocking layoffs, Illston's order specifically barred the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from issuing directives for job cuts or reorganization within federal agencies.
DOGE's activities have faced numerous legal challenges, with dozens of lawsuits filed on various grounds, including alleged violations of labor and privacy laws, and claims that the department exceeded its authority. While some challenges have had mixed results, two separate judges had previously ordered the reinstatement of thousands of probationary employees who were mass-fired in February, though these rulings were subsequently paused by appeals courts. Elon Musk was seen at a farewell event with President Trump at the Oval Office on Friday, marking the conclusion of his active involvement with the administration.
In February, President Trump had directed government agencies to collaborate with DOGE to pinpoint targets for widespread layoffs as part of the administration's broader restructuring agenda. This directive urged agencies to eliminate redundant roles, unnecessary management layers, and non-critical positions, while also advocating for the automation of routine tasks, the closure of regional offices, and a reduction in the use of external contractors. Many federal agencies had already announced intentions to significantly cut staff, including a reported 10,000 employees at health agencies.
In the specific case leading to Friday's appeals court decision, the unions and groups that brought the lawsuit argued that only Congress holds the constitutional authority to establish agencies, define their missions, and determine their funding levels, contending that large-scale layoffs undermine this congressional power. Judge Illston, in her initial ruling, highlighted that the plaintiffs would likely face various irreparable harms if the layoffs were to proceed. As an example, she cited that a U.S. Department of Labor office in Pittsburgh, responsible for researching health hazards affecting mineworkers, would be left with only one out of its 222 employees. Similar examples were provided for local offices of Head Start, the Farm Service Agency, and the Social Security Administration.
Comments
Post a Comment