Federal Judge Halts Trump’s Mass Layoff Plans, Citing Congressional Overreach

By Staff, Agencies

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s sweeping plan to implement mass layoffs and close down numerous government programs, ruling that such a large-scale federal restructuring requires congressional approval.

The decision halts efforts at more than two dozen agencies to proceed with what would have been the most significant downsizing attempt yet under President Trump’s leadership.

The ruling, issued by Judge Susan Illston of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, followed an emergency hearing and emphasized that the administration’s moves posed an immediate threat to essential public services. Illston highlighted that under US law, reorganization of federal agencies demands consultation and coordination with Congress — a step the administration failed to take.

“It is the prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government,” Judge Illston wrote in her 42-page order. “But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his coequal branch and partner, the Congress.”

The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and six local governments — including San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and Harris County, Texas — all arguing that the administration’s unilateral actions have destabilized agencies and jeopardized critical services. These include disaster aid, Social Security appointments, mine safety inspections, and education programs for young children.

The case marks the most sweeping legal challenge yet to Trump’s efforts to dismantle and shrink the federal government. Unlike previous lawsuits that targeted specific personnel decisions — such as the mass firing of probationary employees earlier this year — this case unites a broad range of plaintiffs to challenge the overarching downsizing plan.

The coalition behind the lawsuit warned that communities across the country are already feeling the effects, with some services disrupted and others on the brink of collapse. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, laid off 10,000 employees in early April, resulting in the shutdown of programs that help low-income families pay heating bills and track public health trends.

At issue now are the looming “reductions in force” — large-scale layoffs that could affect hundreds of thousands of federal workers. Agencies were ordered to submit reorganization plans by mid-April, with some already initiating layoffs and encouraging early resignations or retirements. Many employees are still in the dark about their futures as agency leaders finalize staffing cuts.

To support their case, the plaintiffs submitted over 1,300 pages of sworn statements from local health workers, housing inspectors, law enforcement, and others detailing the cascading impact of the cuts.

In court, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that the lawsuit’s plaintiffs were too diverse to be grouped together, claiming that unionized workers and local governments suffer different types of harm. He also insisted that Trump’s executive orders fall largely outside the court’s authority to review.

But plaintiffs’ attorney Danielle Leonard countered that the administration’s actions are unconstitutional, representing an attempt by the executive branch to seize powers reserved for Congress. She accused the government of offering inconsistent justifications for the president’s authority to bypass Congress and reorganize the government unilaterally.

“There’s a presumption of regularity that used to exist with respect to the government’s actions that I think they need to re-earn,” Leonard said, describing the administration’s legal logic as “an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail.”

The judge’s order delays any further action for two weeks, but with the administration’s plans already in motion, the case could have far-reaching implications for the separation of powers and the future of the federal workforce.