An appeals court has made a significant ruling by allowing a pause on layoffs at most major federal agencies to remain in effect. This decision comes as the court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to block a lower court's injunction, likely escalating the matter to the Supreme Court for final determination.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision, siding with unions, municipalities, and advocacy groups that filed lawsuits against the planned workforce reductions. The ruling prevents the implementation of significant layoffs and agency reorganizations, ensuring that these measures will continue to be on hold indefinitely.
The Trump administration sought to challenge this decision on an emergency basis, requesting a stay on the district court's ruling. This lower court had determined that President Trump likely acted beyond his legal and constitutional powers when proposing these workforce reduction plans. The majority opinion, authored by Judge William Fletcher, highlighted several federal agencies poised to experience drastic layoffs, underscoring the potential for irreparable injury if the layoffs were to proceed.
Judge Fletcher's ruling emphasized that the plaintiffs—comprising unions and advocacy groups—are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. The court found that the balance of interests does not favor the Trump administration's request for a stay on the injunction. The administration argued that it would face financial harm by continuing to pay employees it wishes to lay off; however, the court deemed this argument unconvincing.
The ruling further pointed out that the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which the government claimed were appropriate channels for the plaintiffs, lack the authority to address the constitutional and statutory issues raised. Judge Fletcher noted that the Trump administration had failed to provide compelling evidence for the necessity of the proposed reductions in force (RIFs), stating, “Defendants have yet to offer any evidence pointing to any explanation or justification for these sweeping RIFs beyond a general and undifferentiated desire for a reduction in the number of people on the government’s payroll.”
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan expressed her belief that the president holds the authority to manage the executive branch, which includes the power to empower agencies to terminate and lay off employees. This disagreement highlights the ongoing debate over the extent of presidential powers regarding federal employment.
Previously, the Trump administration had requested the Supreme Court to intervene and block a temporary restraining order that initially halted the RIF plans. However, after the current preliminary injunction took effect, the administration withdrew that appeal. It is now anticipated that the administration will once again seek relief from the Supreme Court regarding this matter.
The current order halting layoffs impacts several federal departments, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. Additionally, it covers various other entities such as the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Department of Government Efficiency, AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Labor Relations Board, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, and the Social Security Administration.
This ruling marks a critical juncture in the ongoing discussions about federal employment, the powers of the presidency, and the rights of public sector workers. As the situation continues to unfold, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it prepares to take on this contentious issue.
