Judge extends pause on impending federal layoffs

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge on Wednesday opted to extend a block on impending federal reductions-in-force, ruling that certain agencies violated a congressional prohibition on implementing reductions in force when they notified certain federal employees of separation in early December.

“The continuing resolution ending the longest shutdown in history said that no federal funding would be spent RIFing people through Jan. 30, and that is not what is happening in some agencies,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said.

“The situations that have brought this matter to court are truly extreme and require immediate action in my view,” she continued.

In a bench ruling, the Bill Clinton appointee said she would grant the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, effective immediately.

The order prohibits the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management and Budget, the State Department and the Department of Education from moving forward with any reduction-in-force actions, including separating employees from their jobs, through at least Jan. 30.

It also rescinds any RIFs implemented between Oct. 1 and Nov. 1 and orders RIF’d employees at the included agencies, plus the General Services Administration and Small Business Administration be reinstated to their Sept. 30, 2025, job status with full back pay.

However, the judge specified that she incorporated a five-day period into her ruling for the government to consider an appeal and enact the order.

In a statement, President and CEO Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward, a law firm representing the plaintiffs, said they are “grateful that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration’s illegal and disastrous attempt to fire civil servants, yet again.”

“No one should be surprised when President Trump breaks his word, but to directly contradict a law he just signed himself is an unfortunate reminder that we cannot trust a single thing this president and his administration says or does.”

Representatives for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, which represent the federal employees facing termination, filed an emergency motion on Dec. 3 after the State Department notified certain employees by email on Dec. 1 that they would be separated on Dec. 5.

Hours before the State Department planned to separate workers who had received termination notices, Illston issued a temporary restraining order blocking the separations, finding that the firings would likely violate a law prohibiting shutdown-related terminations.

Section 120 of the continuing resolution that ended the 43-day government shutdown bars federal agencies from using any funds to initiate or carry out reductions in force, including issuing layoff notices from Nov. 12, 2025 — when President Donald Trump signed the law — through Jan. 30, 2026.

Illston opened the hearing by talking about the impact the “chaotic” nature of the terminations has had on government employees, citing stories of employees losing health care coverage, including the inability of a new parent to take their baby to the doctor because they did not have insurance.

The government argued federal employees had known about their separations for months, as the RIF notices at issue in this case predate the government shutdown. Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg said the short time period of time regarding final separations is not due to the lack of notice but is reflective of RIF notices being paused by litigation.

“To the extent there is relatively little time left for separations to take effect, intervening elements have precluded those separations from taking place,” he said. “This is merely the administration trying to carry out its policy objectives.”

In contrast, the plaintiffs argued the prohibition of RIFs through Jan. 30 was Congress’ policy preference passed in the continuing resolution, which the president signed into law.

“Congress was also very clear, requiring any RIF on which the agencies took any action to be invalid,” Robin Tholin of Altshuler Berzon, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said.

Tholin added Congress specifically included that agencies have five days to send affected employees notices voiding any RIFs during the shutdown and reinstating the employees, regardless of when the RIF notice was issued.

“Congress did not mean to limit this in any way; it was not just RIF notices after Sept. 30 that could be included,” she said.

The government’s argument against extending the block on terminations largely rested on the interpretation of the word “otherwise” in the continuing resolution. Rosenberg argued the court should read the statute as prohibiting sending RIF notices, but allowing RIFs previously sent before the shutdown to be implemented.

“It has to be read as ‘otherwise noticing RIFs.’ If that is the case, the government’s view is correct, and agencies can move forward if there is a preexisting notice,” he said.

In contrast, the plaintiffs argued “otherwise” should be interpreted as referring to any type of notice that would go out about RIFs.

“Here the government would read ‘or otherwise’ to say this only applies to notices issued before the shutdown, that is not what the statute says and what Congress intended,” Tholin said.

Rosenberg additionally argued the preliminary injunction the plaintiffs were seeking was not appropriate at the current stage, emphasizing that the plaintiffs were not asking the court to just pause the RIFs but, instead, requesting it to undo the RIFs and reinstate employees who have already been separated from employment.

“That is what statute requires,” Illston responded.

Rosenberg proposed that the court need not reinstate the employees by the end of the budget period in January and that ordering the reinstatement would be an “affirmative injunction that would require the government to … ”

“To comply with the law,” Illston interrupted. Can I not do that?”

Danielle Leonard of Altshuler Berzon, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued the court is within its rights to order employees be reinstated, claiming Congress was “incredibly clear” about restoring the employees.

“Congress could have said stop, halt. But Congress went further by saying put them back, fix it, tell them and make it clear and do it in five days. Incredibly significant. That is Congress speaking on what public interest is.”

The government also requested a stay of at least seven days to determine whether or not to appeal.

Illston said she was considering giving the government a “few days” to appeal before the order went into effect to prevent “whiplash consequences,” adding that it was “really wrong the way people’s lives are being impacted by the behavior of the United States government.”

Rosenberg said five days was an “insufficient amount of time” because the appeals court would have little time to issue a stay during the holidays, which Illston acknowledged.

“All the concerns you’re describing are exacerbated by this being smack dab in the middle of the holiday season. I agree that makes everything far more difficult and complicated. That makes relief, in my view, more significant,” she said.

Follow @mhattridge_