Shutdown layoffs indefinitely blocked following new court injunction

A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from carrying out layoffs during the government shutdown, saying the president’s actions were likely unlawful and taken for the purposes of political retribution. 

The White House’s argument that agencies are no longer required to carry out certain programs during a shutdown is incorrect, San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said, and the administration did not have the authority to order cuts at specific agencies. Illston’s preliminary injunction will prevent both new RIFs from being issued and pause any implementation of the roughly 4,000 layoffs that agencies have already ordered. 

The judge said she would clarify the exact scope of the order later on Tuesday in writing, but added in essence federal agencies “are enjoined from issuing any more RIF notices.” Michael Velchik, a Justice Department attorney arguing on behalf of the administration, asked that cuts in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Interior Department not be included in the order as those layoffs were underway long before the shutdown commenced. Illston said she would likely hold a further evidentiary hearing to make that determination. 

USPTO already sent RIF notices to about 1% of its workforce, while Interior is planning to lay off thousands of workers. 

“Our team is honored to represent the civil servants who are fighting back against President Trump's dangerous agenda, and to have won this crucial injunction that will help stop federal workers from continuing to be targeted and harassed by this administration during the shutdown,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, who is leading the lawsuit on behalf of the several unions who brought it. 

Illston noted the declarations submitted to the court were “very affecting,” citing a Housing and Urban Development Department worker who received a layoff notice earlier this month and said he had “never gone through any as traumatizing as what I am now experiencing” including his combat service. She also noted another employee who said she would not be able to afford surgery related to a liver transplant if their RIF took effect. 

In addition to the “statutes and administrative procedure and the like, we are also talking about human lives and these human lives are being dramatically affected by the activities that we are discussing this morning,” Illston said. 

She added it was “ironic” the administration may be violating the Antideficiency Act—the 19th century law that governs federal spending during a shutdown—by carving out human resources employees from furloughs so they could carry out RIFs. She also cited Trump’s and Office of Management and Director Russ Vought’s claims that RIFs would target “Democrat programs” in saying the cuts were intended as “political retribution.”  

For the government’s part, Velchik argued that it was “obviously true” that if Congress does not explicitly fund a program, the executive branch should not carry it out. Additionally, he said, RIFs are permitted before, during or after a shutdown. During a funding lapse, however, the government has “all the more reason” to engage in layoffs, he said. Such an approach was not “arbitrary and capricious,” but instead “good policy” because the impacted employees are furloughed and incurring future obligations including back pay when the government reopens. 

The argument could raise eyebrows in legal circles as the Trump administration has for the last several weeks suggested it is not required to offer back pay—despite a 2019 law that explicitly requires it—and Congress must instead affirmatively act to authorize it. 

Velchik further argued that because Trump previously used the “you’re fired,” catchphrase, he should have the authority to carry out mass layoffs across the federal workforce. 

“Like, this is what they voted for,” Velchik said. “Above all else, this is what he’s known for doing.” 

Danielle Leonard, an attorney at Altshuler Berzon representing the plaintiffs, said the government was making an absurd argument that it could lay off the entire federal workforce if the government were shut down for one day. She lamented that the administration has not been more forthcoming with information about where more RIFs are planned and asked Illston to compel the government to make more details available. 

Illston said she was still weighing whether to grant that request but thought the government made a strong argument that it should be required to do so.