Labor union urges judge to reinstate temporary FEMA employees

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge questioned the government’s evidence about the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to not renew temporary employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Tuesday, but stopped short ruling from the bench despite pleas for immediate relief.

Under a broad case concerning federal employee cuts that recently went to the Ninth Circuit, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO) and several municipalities sued the president and dozens of government agencies last year in response to President Donald Trump’s executive orders reducing the federal employee workforce.

At Tuesday’s hearing, on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston initially said the evidence did not support an order to halt the government’s authority to cut temporary FEMA employees.

Plaintiff’s attorney Danielle Leonard argued that under the 2006 Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, DHS no longer has the authority to make FEMA employee decisions or “usurp FEMA’s authority” on how it runs its own agency. She accused DHS of breaking the law when it decided to not renew employment for approximately 300 temporary employees.

“These terminations have all been directly contrary to the recommendations of FEMA supervisors, who approved these positions for renewal, and to FEMA’s past practice of uniformly (with few exceptions) renewing these positions based on agency need,” the plaintiffs argue in their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Based on government estimates, the total number of temporary FEMA employees is around 10,000. Under new federal guidelines starting this year, their contracts are renewed on a 90-day basis.

Leonard said DHS sent an email in January that it was going to reduce FEMA staff by 50%, including a 41% reduction of temporary employees.

The union claims the personnel reductions will “incapacitate the agency and its ability to respond to the year-round threat of disasters, risking a repeat of the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, which Congress vowed would never again occur.”

The plaintiffs seek to halt further DHS interference with FEMA functions and to reinstate the temporary employees, who since Jan. 23 have remained “in limbo,” according to Leonard, while the plan was paused due to a severe winter storm.

Leonard called DHS’s decision to cut temporary employees and then to halt the full implementation of the plan as arbitrary and capricious.

“We are very concerned,” Leonard said, noting the employees lost health care. “And the silence is deafening.”

Leonard cited a declaration from Karen Evans, a senior official at FEMA since December 2025, stating that while she can approve of the renewals of temporary employees or recommend their nonrenewal, the final decision currently lies with DHS.

The plaintiffs noted Evans wasn’t nominated and approved for her post, and that Trump has “refused" to nominate a FEMA administrator to the Senate since January 2025 due to his belief that FEMA should “be eliminated” and local governments should provide disaster relief.

Illston, a Bill Clinton appointee, was hesitant to say much in open court on the reduction of FEMA staff, except to say that there have been “more natural disasters happening, because of global warming.”

Department of Justice attorney Robert Bombard said there was “no plan” under DHS to cut FEMA employees, and the email that mentioned the 41% reduction was “a planning exercise” and not legally binding.

He initially told the court DHS did not decide on the terminations, and it was FEMA that made the decision to cut its temporary staff, contradicting Evan’s sworn declaration.

However, he added DHS has the authority to make FEMA employee decisions as “the parent agency” and wasn’t in violation of the post-Katrina Act, if read broadly.

“This is extraordinary,” Leonard said after hearing Bombard’s explanation. “It is outrageous we are hearing this at this time.”

Illston pressed Bombard on how he knew it was FEMA and not DHS that decided on not renewing temporary employees. Bombard replied that he received the information from FEMA and DHS officials, and would provide supplemental information about the decisionmakers.

Bombard said the plaintiffs “exaggerated and overstated the independence of FEMA” and argued against the preliminary injunction, saying the court didn’t have the jurisdiction to make rulings on Civil Service Reform Act matters.

He said the plaintiffs were seeking relief far beyond redressing the issues, ultimately making temporary employees permanent staff without any “natural expiration dates.”

By the end of the hourslong hearing, Illston took the arguments under submission and did not specify if further discovery was needed nor when she may have a ruling.