A federal judge on Friday called for a two-week suspension of the Trump administration's plans for massive layoffs and program closures, saying the judges were illegal without Congressional permission, except that two dozen agencies would advance the biggest phase of the president's downsizing efforts.
Of all lawsuits challenging President Trump's vision to dramatically reduce the shape and function of the federal government, this is poised to have the broadest effect. While most agencies have yet to announce plans to miniaturize, government employees are worried about the announcements that have been anticipated for weeks.
Hours after Friday's emergency hearing, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Susan Ilston said the government's efforts to fire workers and shut down offices and programs created an urgent threat to key services scores.
Congress has set up a specific process for the federal government to reorganize itself. The unions and organizations behind the lawsuit alleges that the president has no authority to make those decisions without a legislative unit.
Judge Illston noted that the process needs to discuss with Congress about plans to abolish or relocate some of its agents.
“It is the president's privilege to pursue new policy priorities and stamp their stamps on the federal government,” she wrote in a 42-page order. “However, in order to do a massive overhaul of federal agencies, the President must seek the help of his comparable branch and partner, Congress.”
Judge Illston listed services that could disappear if the offices that manage them disappear after floods, such as farmers' disaster relief funds, social security beneficiary benefits, mine workplace safety inspections, grants to support kindergarten programs, disaster relief funds for farmers, and farmers' disaster relief funds.
This scenario evoked what had already happened in the Department of Health and Human Services when massive layoffs caused major disruption to the program, but it's massive. The deep cuts hamper programs that are indirectly hampered, such as those that help low-income families provide heating costs and another program that helps track the rate of chronic illness and gun violence.
Unions and other organizations sued the federal government for other personnel actions, including indiscriminately firing thousands of probation workers earlier this year, but this is the first time such a wide coalition has come together to challenge the administration's actions. Plaintiffs in the ambitious lawsuit included unions, nonprofits, and six cities and counties.
“The Trump administration's illegal attempt to restructure the federal government has thrown institutions into chaos and disrupt the vital services offered across our country,” the coalition said in a joint statement. “Each of us represents a community that is deeply invested in federal efficiency. If we fire federal employees and reorganize government functions to annul it, it won't achieve that.”
The lawsuit filed last week is the latest in a progression of a challenge that has focused on the erosion of federal civil servants since President Trump took office.
In recent months, not only has hurt tens of thousands of federal workers and their families, but it has not only hurt residents of cities and counties where veteran benefits, environmental protection and disaster relief assistance are losing or casting doubt, it has documented steady efforts on the agencies that burned it.
A particular issue is the looming “power reduction,” representing the biggest part of Trump's government's efforts to reduce government. Earlier this year, his administration fired thousands of probation employees. However, the current phase is expected to cut hundreds of thousands.
The agency was given guidance and a brief timeline to complete the plan for this reorganization earlier this year. The government has reorganised this way before, but it has not been such a large, short timeline.
By April 14, the agency was providing guidance as it was supposed to send the final plan to the Human Resources Administration and the Management and Budget Bureau. Some agents announced early layoffs before the deadline.
For example, the Department of Health and Human Services fired 10,000 employees in early April. In some cases, the entire office will be closed and the program will be closed. Employees were placed on administrative leave and were immediately locked out of the equipment.
Employees at other agencies are afraid of future announcements and receive minimal information about who will be affected. To meet the White House cuts demands, some agencies are offering resignation incentives that are currently being reviewed and processed. After resignation and early retirement, agency leaders have a better sense of where there are vacant seats, then mandatory additional cuts are decided.
To supplement the case, the lawyers filed a roughly 1,300-page statement of oath from local health providers, housing inspectors, law enforcement, firefighters and others documenting how cuts to the federal government have affected their lives and jobs.
During hearing Friday, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that the coalition of groups behind the lawsuit was legally problematic. Because union members facing layoffs and nonprofits and local governments, which are bearing the brunt of federal services, were separate “categories” with obviously clear harm.
Hamilton added that Trump's powers to reorganize federal agencies are vast, and that the executive order he signed to the mandated changes is generally beyond the authority to review the court's authority.
Daniel Leonard, the lawyer representing the group that sued, said the Trump administration's vision is to fundamentally degrade the services that fund Congress in order to bring about deep dispute separation due to the conflict.
“There are presumptions of regularity that existed regarding government actions.
Leonard said the Trump administration could never point out any particular authority that the president could seize that power from Congress. And she said the government consistently provides competing and contradictory explanations as to why Trump can approve a massive restructuring without Congress.
“It's ouroboros. The snakes are eating their tails,” she said.
