A U.S. District Court in San Francisco has indefinitely extended a ban on large-scale reductions in force (RIFs) initiated by the Trump administration. The ruling, delivered by Judge Susan Illston, asserts that the efforts to reorganize federal agencies violate the separation of powers principles established by the Constitution.
The preliminary injunction issued on Thursday echoes a temporary order that was set to end on Friday. This ruling prevents several key federal agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, from implementing an executive order issued by the president in February that directed these agencies to create and execute restructuring and downsizing plans.
The latest injunction requires agencies to reverse any RIF actions started under the executive order, although they may temporarily suspend these actions while the case is under appeal. In her reasoning, Illston emphasized that the agency RIFs displayed a blatant disregard for Congress’s authority to establish and fund federal agencies. She rejected the administration’s claim that it was merely offering guidance for self-directed downsizing.
In her ruling, Illston stated that the evidence suggests the executive branch’s actions are more than simple guidance. She noted that agencies had begun submitting detailed RIF and reorganization plans for approval from presidential appointees and had quickly commenced implementation without Congressional consent. These rapid changes, she argued, hinder the agencies’ ability to fulfill their legislative mandates.
The Trump administration has already initiated an appeal to this latest ruling, seeking to challenge Illston’s interpretation of the executive order’s scope. In its appeal, government attorneys outlined their view that the RIFs fall within the legal allowances of federal law and contended that the judge had overstepped her boundaries by blocking them.
The legal argument emphasizes that respondents’ inability to directly confront agency RIFs does not justify a broader challenge against the President’s reorganization initiatives. The administration maintains that the executive branch has the authority to direct agencies in accordance with statutory provisions set forth by Congress.
Illston did leave room for agencies to perform RIFs, provided they are initiated unilaterally and not as a part of the reorganization plans mandated by the executive order. However, the details of the specific reorganization strategies remain largely undisclosed, as many agencies resist disclosures linked to the lawsuit. Illston reviewed four of these plans privately and concluded that the proposed RIFs likely would not have occurred independently without executive involvement.
The injunction against large-scale RIFs reaches across several key departments, including Commerce, Energy, and Health and Human Services, among others, while excluding military and law enforcement divisions. As the case continues to unfold, the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress remains a focal point of contention.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The individuals, facts, circumstances, and narrative may not be accurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.