San Francisco — The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has halted until May 23 President Donald Trump’s Executive Order implementing “large-scale reductions in force” or reorganizations of multiple federal agencies.
In granting a temporary restraining order on May 9, Judge Susan Illston agreed with a coalition of labor unions, nonprofit organizations and local governments, writing that “the executive branch cannot lawfully implement large-scale reductions in the federal workforce without the participation of Congress.”
On May 5, a group led by the American Federation of Government Employees filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the EO, issued Feb. 11.
The EO directs agency heads to work with the Department of Government Efficiency to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate” reductions in force and to “separate from federal service temporary employees and reemployed annuitants working in areas that will likely be subject to the RIFs.”
It also directs agencies to hire no more than one employee for every four employees who leave. The EO specifies that “this ratio shall not apply to functions related to public safety, immigration enforcement or law enforcement,” and doesn’t explicitly reference OSHA inspectors.
“While Congress may choose at times to delegate to the president some of its statutory power with respect to agencies, it has not done so here,” the plaintiffs wrote. “The president exceeds his constitutional authority when he unilaterally assumes and exercises the authority to recreate federal agencies in the manner he sees fit, without that legislative authorization.”
In her opinion, Illston calls attention to 62 sworn declarations and more than 1,000 pages of evidence from the plaintiffs. In one example, she cited the plaintiffs’ claim that the “reduction-in-force will terminate 221 of 222” positions in NIOSH’s Pittsburgh office “that research health hazards faced by mine workers.”
Attorneys from the Department of Justice appealed the ruling on May 9. The district court has scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for May 22.
“The irreparable harm that plaintiffs will suffer in the absence of injunctive relief outweighs any burden placed on the government by this two-week pause,” Illston added. “In the context of a dynamic situation, the court’s temporary order seeks to preserve the status quo and protect the power of the legislative branch.”
