California judge halts Trump federal job cuts amid government shutdown

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Wednesday firing thousands of federal employees Based on the ongoing federal shutdown, we have granted the request of federal employee unions in California.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the temporary restraining order after concluding that the unions “will ultimately demonstrate that what is being done here is both illegal and excessive, arbitrary and capricious.”

Illston criticized the Trump administration for not giving him clear information about what cuts actually occurred, for repeatedly changing descriptions and estimates of layoffs in court filings, and for failing to articulate an argument (including at Wednesday’s hearing in San Francisco) for why such cuts did not violate federal law.

“The evidence shows that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) took advantage of the disruption in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets were off, that the laws no longer applied to them,” Illston said, adding that this was not the case.

He said the government justified providing false figures on the number of jobs eliminated under “reduction in force” orders by calling it a “fluid situation” and found it unconvincing.

“This is a situation where things are done before they’re even thought about. A lot of these programs are very ready, shoot, aim,” he said. “And that comes at a human cost, that’s why we’re here today. It’s an intolerable human cost.”

Illston also examined a series of comments made by President Trump and other members of his administration about the layoffs and their deliberate targeting of programs and institutions supported by Democrats: “It appears they are politically motivated.”

While the Trump administration acknowledged laying off nearly 4,000 workers under the order, Trump and other officials signaled more would follow on Friday.

Lawyers for unions led by the American Federation of Government Employees said the numbers were unreliable and they feared additional “RIF” orders that would result in more layoffs, as administration officials have promised, unless the court intervenes and blocks such actions.

Illston did just that.

It prohibited the Trump administration and its various agencies from “taking any action to issue notice of any reduction in forces on federal employees in any program, project, or activity involving union members during or because of the federal shutdown.”

It also prohibited management from “taking any further action to administer or enforce” existing reduction notices covering union members.

Illston demanded that the administration provide within two days a full accounting of all current or “impending” reductions in force orders that would be blocked by his order, as well as the exact number of federal jobs affected.

Elizabeth Hedges, a Trump administration lawyer, argued during the hearing that the order should not have been issued for several procedural reasons; these included that the alleged harm suffered by federal employees from loss of employment or benefits was not “irreparable” and could be resolved by other means, including civil lawsuits.

Additionally, he argued that federal employment claims should be decided administratively rather than in district court; and that the reduction in force orders involved 60-day notice periods, meaning the layoffs were not immediate and therefore the challenge to them had not yet legally “matured”.

But Hedges did not argue the case on its factual merits; namely, whether the deductions were actually legal, which Illston did not like.

“Don’t you have a position on whether what they’re doing is right or not?” he asked.

“I’m not prepared to discuss that today, Your Honor,” Hedges said.

“Well – but it’s happening. This ax is falling on the heads of workers across the country, and you’re not even prepared to debate whether it’s legal, even though that’s what this motion is pushing for?” said Illston.

“Correct,” Hedges said, again emphasizing that there were “threshold” arguments as to why the case should not be allowed to proceed to the merits stage.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the unions, argued that the government’s positions were indefensible and directly contradicted management’s public statements; This includes Trump’s comments on Tuesday that more cuts would come on Friday.

“How do we know this? Because OMB and the president have been telling us and other members of the administration nonstop,” Leonard said.

Leonard said the damage caused by management’s actions was clear and laid out in the union’s filings; It shows how employees were left in the dark about their employment status because they did not have access to business communication channels during the shutdown, or how others were called upon to “work for free to fire fellow employees” only to then be fired themselves.

“There are many types of harm that are occurring right now, emotional trauma. That’s not my word, your honor, that’s the OMB Director’s word.” [Russ] Vought. Let’s inflict ‘trauma’ on the federal workforce,” Leonard said. “And that’s exactly what they’re doing. Trauma. The emotional distress of being told you’re going to be fired after an already extraordinarily difficult year for federal employees.

Illston asked the two parties to agree on a best date, possibly later this month, for a more comprehensive hearing on whether he should seek a more permanent injunction in the case.

“It would be great to know what the government’s position is on the merits of this case, and I’m holding my breath until we find out,” Illston said.