State Department ‘appears’ to be violating court order by issuing layoffs as soon as June 13, judge says

A federal judge on Wednesday said the State Department appears to be violating her pause on most agency layoffs by moving forward with planned cuts, though she asked for additional evidence before making a final decision. 

The Trump administration told the court that the State Department’s reorganization, expected to lead to thousands of job cuts, is permissible even under the current preliminary injunction and layoff notices could go out as soon as next week. Susan Illston, a district judge in California, held an emergency hearing after the plaintiffs in the case—a consortium of federal employee unions, municipalities and advocacy groups—accused the administration of violating the judge’s order. 

The Trump administration argued in advance of, and during, Thursday’s hearing that State’s reorganization was conducted separately from President Trump’s mandate that all agencies slash their workforces and instead occurred only at the instruction of Secretary Marco Rubio. Because Illston’s order applied only to Trump’s executive order and subsequent guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, the Justice Department lawyers said, State’s plans were not subject to the injunction. 

The administration has taken “a broad range of actions” to top planned RIFs at 17 agencies, said Andrew Bernie, a Justice attorney, but State’s plans represented “a special case.” 

Illston first issued a temporary restraining order pausing State and most major agencies from carrying out reorganizations and related staffing cuts under Trump’s orders on May 10, then extended the pause indefinitely by issuing a preliminary injunction on May 22. 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, noted that State disseminated a fact sheet in April on the reorganization that said department officials would “submit a path to reducing staff in domestic offices by 15%, consistent with the president’s Workforce Optimization Initiative.” That initiative was part of Illston’s injunction. Bernie countered that State’s actions were merely consistent with that initiative but not taken because of it.

Bernie added that State could move forward with its layoffs as soon as June 13. State is expected to shed more than 3,400 employees, though it will rely on both reductions in force and voluntary separations to meet that total. Bernie said State informed him that while employees could receive their layoff notices next week, actual separations would not occur until mid-August for civil servants and mid-October for foreign service officers. 

Illston said she was not ready to make a decision, but was leaning toward siding with the plaintiffs. 

“It appears to me, anyway, that what is being implemented at the State Department now is covered by the injunction,” the judge said. 

She ordered the Trump administration to submit evidence proving State’s reorganization was taking place separately from Trump’s demands and OMB and OPM’s guidance by Monday. Plaintiffs will then have an opportunity to respond and Illston will hold a hearing to make a determination either June 12 or June 13, depending on when State asserts the RIFs are set to occur. 

At that hearing, Illston will also determine whether the renewed dismissals of probationary employees at the Housing and Urban Development Department violated her order. As Government Executive first reported, HUD has re-fired some of its probationary employees since Illston first paused agency restructurings. The plaintiffs in the case suggested that may have violated the judge’s order, but Bernie said those firings were not subject to the injunction. 

At the Health and Human Services Department, meanwhile, the Trump administration conceded that some employees in the Administration for Community Living who had previously received RIF notices were given offboarding after Illston’s order went into effect. HHS has subsequently informed those workers that offboarding is on hold. The National Institutes of Health moved some employees to administrative leave, but has since reversed those changes. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied the Trump administration’s request to strike down Illston’s injunction. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene, and the high court requested initial filings by next week.