A federal appeals court ruled on Friday evening that President Donald Trump's directives for mass firings across various federal agencies will remain on hold. The Trump administration had petitioned the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift a lower court's ruling that prohibited terminations at over a dozen agencies. This new order represents a significant setback for Trump in his ongoing efforts to drastically reduce the size of the federal government.
President Trump's plans for sweeping layoffs, referred to as reductions in force (RIFs), have been stalled since May 9. This was after US District Judge Susan Illston determined that Trump lacked the authority to execute such a substantial overhaul of federal agencies without congressional authorization. In a 2-1 opinion, the 9th Circuit panel asserted that the executive order in question “far exceeds the President’s supervisory powers under the Constitution.”
The majority opinion concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed in their arguments that the mass layoffs were illegal. Furthermore, the court remarked that the administration did not fulfill the necessary criteria that would warrant an emergency intervention by the appellate court. This ruling underscores the limitations of presidential power when it comes to reorganizing federal agencies without legislative consent.
White House spokesman Harrison Fields responded to the ruling by stating, “A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch.” He emphasized that the President has the authority to direct the entire executive branch and criticized the judiciary for potentially undermining the President's agenda. The administration plans to continue fighting against this order.
The case was initiated by a coalition of federal employees’ unions, local governments, and various advocacy groups. They challenged a February executive order that mandated a comprehensive restructuring of the federal government. Additionally, directives from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) aimed to implement Trump's downsizing strategy, which included requests for agencies to submit plans on how to carry out these terminations.
The challengers contended that OPM and OMB were effectively controlling the extent of each agency's layoffs. They provided evidence suggesting that proposals for less severe cuts were being blocked, rendering the planned terminations and reorganizations unlawful. The lawsuit also focused on the role of the Department of Government Efficiency in the mass firings.
Among the agencies included in Judge Illston's earlier order blocking the layoffs are nearly all Cabinet-level departments, such as the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Interior, Labor, State, and Treasury. The 9th Circuit noted that while Congress has granted agencies the authority to conduct major layoffs, it did not extend that power to the President.
Writing for the majority, Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher stated, “The kind of reorganization contemplated by the Order has long been subject to Congressional approval.” Fletcher, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was joined by Circuit Judge Lucy Koh, nominated by President Joe Biden. In contrast, Circuit Judge Consuelo María Callahan, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, arguing that “the President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct RIFs.”
The coalition challenging Trump's directives expressed satisfaction with the court's decision to extend the pause on these controversial actions while the case continues to progress. This development marks an ongoing tussle over executive power and the legal boundaries of the President's authority in managing the federal workforce.
