Trump administration seeks permission to finalize mass layoffs at HHS

The Trump administration is looking to complete its dismissal of 10,000 employees, renewing its argument in federal court that it can lawfully carry out mass layoffs. 

The request to dismiss the case brought by 19 states follows two Supreme Court rulings that supported the administration's capacity to engage in widespread reductions in force. HHS subsequently moved forward with laying off some of the employees it originally sent RIF notices to in April, but large portions of that group of workers remain on the payroll—in paid administrative leave status—due to an ongoing, lower court order. 

Rhode Island-based District Judge Melissa DuBose reaffirmed her injunction—originally issued in July—in an Aug. 12 order, though she slightly narrowed the HHS offices to which it applied. The Justice Department last week separately appealed DuBose’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appellate court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks.

In the meantime at the district court, the Justice lawyers said the plaintiffs' argument regarding RIFs is “just wrong,”  as the administration has no intention of pulling back its statutory duties. The states have speculated that HHS might miss certain deadlines or fail to provide required information, they added, but they have not proven such incidents will occur. In some cases, they said, the states pointed to information or actions HHS has historically distributed or undertaken but is not required to do by law.

Even if they could prove HHS was falling short of its statutory requirements, the administration said, it would not empower the court to demand certain personnel actions. 

“Plaintiffs theorize throughout their complaint that the restructuring and RIFs have resulted and will result in a violation of the department’s statutory duties,” the government lawyers said. “Setting aside that the department is not violating any of its duties, plaintiffs’ arguments amount to the extraordinary proposition that they, rather than the executive, should get to dictate how the department orders its prerogatives and conducts its day-to-day operations.” 

The states failed to show any precedent to support the notion that courts “can micromanage federal personnel policies to produce particular downstream effect,” the government said. 

As the Trump administration has argued throughout its various RIF cases, the attorneys also said impacted employees must take their case to the Merit Systems Protection Board or other avenues created specifically for federal workers. 

The Supreme Court in its decision reversing the larger injunction on most agency RIFs noted that it was not ruling on the lawfulness of layoff plans at any specific agency. It did not spell out specifics of its decision, instead saying only that the Trump administration was likely to succeed on the merits of its arguments. 

Still, the administration's lawyers noted that the states’ argument relied in part on findings of the First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, findings the Supreme Court has subsequently stayed. The high court has overturned both the larger RIF case and one specifically targeting the Education Department. 

“The Supreme Court’s recent stays of two of those decisions cast serious doubt on their reasoning and counsel in favor of this court reconsidering its previous reasoning,” the Justice attorneys said. 

They added that despite the RIF notices already going out, the states were improperly challenging agency actions that were not yet finalized. HHS’ reorganization is still ongoing and some RIFs have been reversed, the lawyers cited in making their case. 

Finally, the Justice lawyers argued that HHS can withhold some congressionally appropriated funding because spending bills represent a ceiling of what agencies can spend, not a floor for what they must spend. Such an argument would require a dramatically new reading of the Impoundment Control Act and overturn existing Supreme Court precedent, and is part of the Trump administration’s broader strategy for giving the executive branch more unilateral control over the power of the purse. 

The existing injunction applies to employees at many CDC offices, FDA's tobacco office, Head Start and the data office within the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The rest of the 10,000 HHS employees impacted by RIFs were officially separated from the department in July, shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling.