A federal court in San Francisco, led by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, has put a temporary stop to President Donald Trump's administration's ambitious plans to overhaul the federal government. The decision, made on Friday, enacts a 14-day restraining order halting the administration from proceeding with widespread layoffs, commonly referred to as “reductions in force.” This move comes as a significant blow to the restructuring strategy, which has been met with legal resistance since its inception.
The temporary halt was granted in response to a lawsuit filed by a diverse group consisting of unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments. The plaintiffs in the case argued that the Trump administration's efforts to restructure the federal government overstepped administrative procedures and exceeded the executive branch's authority. They cited concerns over the legality of the approach and potential harmful impacts on public services and communities.
Judge Illston's ruling highlights the historical precedent that significant restructuring of federal agencies requires Congressional authorization, a boundary the plaintiffs claim the Trump administration has crossed. Central to the administration's efforts is Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, who was appointed to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Under his guidance, the initiative aimed to streamline federal operations and slash bureaucracy.
Despite the ruling and the upcoming hearing set for May 22 to decide on extending the restraining order, the White House has not issued a comment in response to the court's decision. The Department of Government Efficiency, since its formation, has faced a series of legal challenges, questioning its actions and the broader implications for federal employees and services.
In February, in alignment with the administration's goals, federal agencies were directed to cooperate with DOGE to pinpoint positions that could be eliminated in an effort to cut costs and improve efficiency. This called for the reduction of non-essential jobs, minimizing managerial layers, closing field offices, and increasing reliance on automation, with a reduced need for outside contractors.
The restructuring plan, however, has met with staunch opposition. Critics argue that the changes are not only unlawful but also cause unnecessary turmoil within the federal workforce. They emphasize that the uncertainty and interruptions have already affected vital public services. The lawsuit, filed on April 28, further accuses the administration, including the Office of Management and Budget, DOGE, and the Office of Personnel Management, of acting beyond the scope of their legal powers.
In her detailed ruling, Judge Illston drew attention to over 1,000 pages of evidence and 62 sworn declarations from the plaintiffs, showcasing the potential for widespread harm and disruption. She noted specific instances, such as the near-total termination of staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Pittsburgh and similar cuts in essential programs like Head Start and the Social Security Administration.
The case, according to Judge Illston, encompasses the potential loss of jobs and the larger-scale impact on communities that rely on federal programs and services. She expressed concern over the disruption to families and communities throughout the nation due to the potential loss of salaries and benefits. This temporary restraining order represents a significant legal obstacle for the Trump administration's restructuring agenda, marking the most extensive court action taken against it to date.