This week, a significant Supreme Court ruling has granted the Trump Administration the authority to proceed with extensive agency reorganization and staff reduction plans. However, as legal challenges persist in trial and appellate courts, it appears increasingly likely that federal agencies will be required to publicly disclose these plans at a minimum.
In an order issued on Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston expressed skepticism regarding the government’s assertion that the agency Reorganization and Reduction Plans (ARRPs) are protected under deliberative process privilege. Judge Illston has mandated that government attorneys submit a response by Monday, outlining their reasons for withholding the complete details of these plans.
This order came in response to a filing by union attorneys following Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed President Trump’s general authority to direct agencies in developing staff reduction plans. Notably, the court did not address the legality of the plans themselves. Union attorneys highlighted the relevance of the ARRPs and associated documents, stressing that they would provide insight into the administration’s potential actions and whether these actions reflect “reasoned decision-making.”
In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, the government revealed that 40 distinct Reduction in Force (RIF) plans across 17 agencies were poised for implementation, pending a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Illston last month. In her recent order, Judge Illston indicated that the government must disclose the identities of these agencies by Monday. After reviewing a select number of the RIF plans in private, she suggested that she may order their full release.
“The court is of the view that, at minimum, the final versions of the ARRPs at the 17 agencies referenced before the Supreme Court are not covered by the deliberative process privilege,” she stated. Judge Illston noted that if these RIFs were considered enjoined by her previous order, they would likely not be deemed pre-decisional and deliberative documents.
Despite the court’s orders, the administration continues to argue that the RIF plans should be protected due to their sensitive nature. According to Stephen Billy, a senior advisor at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “No ARRP is ever final.” He elaborated that these plans are dynamic and subject to modification based on changing agency needs or leadership transitions. This fluidity is one reason the OMB and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requested monthly progress reports from agencies in the months of May, June, and July.
As the situation unfolds, individual workers facing potential RIFs will have legal recourse through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. During the MSPB process, agencies must demonstrate adherence to federal RIF regulations when terminating employees, a requirement that has not always been met in previous RIF actions. Michael Fallings, a managing partner at Tully Rinckey law firm, emphasized that errors in service computation dates and performance evaluations were common in past RIFs.
In agencies undergoing selective workforce reductions, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, it is crucial for agencies to correctly categorize employees within the appropriate competitive levels. Employees can investigate their standing and performance relative to others to ensure they are treated fairly during the RIF process.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has left the door open for courts to invalidate specific agency ARRPs before any employee terminations occur. Fallings noted that while the Supreme Court has acknowledged the administration's authority to reshape the workforce, it does not automatically validate the methods used to do so, leaving room for future judicial scrutiny on the matter.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the implications of the Supreme Court ruling on the Trump Administration's plans for agency reorganization and staff reductions remain a topic of significant interest and concern.
