A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out mass layoffs tied to the ongoing government shutdown, halting plans to fire thousands of federal employees while a lawsuit from major unions proceeds.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the emergency order after the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups sued, arguing the administration’s reduction-in-force actions were unlawful, politically motivated and were being carried out without adequate legal or procedural safeguards. The judge described the planned firings as having a significant “human cost” and questioned the administration’s process and reported layoff figures.
The order pauses plans to lay off roughly 4,100 union-represented employees across multiple agencies — including Commerce, Education, Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Homeland Security and Treasury — and blocks further reduction-in-force (RIF) actions tied to the shutdown while the court evaluates the unions’ claims.
Union attorneys argued the administration’s moves violated legal protections for federal employees and improperly used the shutdown as a vehicle to shrink programs and staff favored by Democrats. Government-management outlets and labor groups said the judge criticized Office of Management and Budget guidance that allegedly directed agencies to identify and eliminate programs lacking authorized funding — calling that guidance “completely untrue.”
The White House pushed back. Budget Director Russell Vought publicly predicted the administration’s workforce reductions could ultimately exceed 10,000 positions and defended the firings as part of broader efforts to reduce government size during the funding lapse. The court’s order, however, prevents the administration from moving forward while the legal challenge is resolved.
The temporary order came after agencies began issuing layoff notices in the first weeks of the shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025, a step that Democrats and unions said was intended to apply political pressure on congressional Democrats to accept the administration’s funding terms. The court demanded additional information from the administration within days about how the layoffs were determined and carried out.
Legal analysts say the case will turn on whether the administration complied with statutes governing funding lapses, personnel procedures and collective-bargaining rights — including whether the layoffs improperly circumvented requirements of the Antideficiency Act and other civil-service protections. If the court’s temporary restraining order is extended, it could significantly constrain the administration’s shutdown strategy and complicate efforts to use staffing changes as leverage in budgeting fights.
Labor leaders welcomed the ruling as a short-term victory for workers and for services that rely on federal staff, while White House officials said they would continue to press for agency workforce reductions once legal constraints allow. The case is expected to move quickly through the district court; further hearings and briefing will determine whether the pause becomes a longer-term injunction.
English