Judge blocks renewed Trump plans for mass State Department layoffs

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the U.S. State Department from executing an upcoming agency-wide reorganization that would have laid off 2,000 federal employees. During a hearing on the issue, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston clarified that the department’s new plan was still prohibited by her previous court order.

The judge rejected the State Department’s claim that this new round of layoffs was not covered by her previous decision, arguing that her injunction only covered layoff plans authorized by Trump’s executive order, not layoffs initiated for different reasons.

“If things proceed consistent with that executive order — even if they were initiated in some different way but are consistent with implementing the executive order — then they’re barred,” the Bill Clinton appointee ruled.

At issue in the case was Trump’s Executive Order 14210, titled “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative,” issued in February. According to the plaintiffs, this executive order calls for thousands of workers to be fired at federal agencies.

In April, the judge originally blocked the department’s mass layoff plans through a court order, but in late May, the State Department notified Congress of renewed plans for an even bigger reorganization plan, featuring further cuts to programs and staff.

As part of its new plan, the department even ramped up the planned number of firings from the initially proposed 15% of its domestic staff to 18%.

“I think these things were covered by the injunction,” Illston said of the State Department’s plans.

The department has walked back those claims in declarations to the court, effectively saying that its statements before Congress were a mistake and made without adequate consultation.

“The state department is telling the court one thing and Congress the opposite,” Illston said. “I consider what the department told Congress to be true.”

San Francisco and its co-plaintiffs voiced concern for federal employees after the department’s statements to Congress and urged the court to be “highly suspicious” of its conduct.

“We want to make sure that they are not fired, after this conversation,” said Daniell Leonard of Altshuler Berzon, who represented the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs also asked the court to clarify the scope of its language in a future order to include “any action implementing that reorganization,” including imminent reductions-in-force and the placement of employees on administrative leave.

The judge agreed, indicating she would be keeping a tight watch on the department going forward.

“If the government has questions about whether what I say includes or does not include something, then I direct you to tell me and the plaintiffs what your confusion is before you do anything,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston stated.

The judge issued a written order on her decision shortly after the hearing.

This hearing is part of a larger lawsuit by San Francisco and more than two dozen other local governments, nonprofits and labor organizations that sued the Trump administration in late April over its plans to fire thousands of federal workers.

The plaintiffs claim that Trump’s executive order was not merely a planning process and accused the president of attempting to usurp the authority of Congress and the legislative branch.

“The whole problem with this executive order, in my opinion, is its failure to incorporate the guidance of the Congress,” Illston agreed.

After a hearing in May, Illston granted a temporary restraining order barring the State Department from acting on the president’s directive. The judge later extended her order into a preliminary injunction.

In the complaint, San Francisco and its co-plaintiffs said any federal workforce reduction would cause adverse impacts to the city, citing three Department of Energy grants awarded to help the city develop green building standards and deploy EV charging infrastructure that are now frozen because the workers are no longer employed by the Department of Energy.

This case was filed in the Northern District of California and heard remotely via Zoom Workplace.