Federal judge extends blockade on Trump’s Reductions in Force at federal agencies

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday against President Trump’s massive “reductions in force” for the federal bureaucracy, saying it looks like he’s really trying to do the sort of agency reorganization that requires permission from Congress.

Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee to the court in California, said the government’s rush to carry out the RIFs, as they are known, seems more about crushing government than making it more efficient.

“In some cases, as plaintiffs’ evidence shows, agency changes intentionally or negligently flout the tasks Congress has assigned them. After dramatic staff reductions, these agencies will not be able to do what Congress has directed them to do,” she said.

That includes the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, where 221 of the 222 employees are due to be fired, and the Social Security Administration, which is looking to cut 7,000 employees and where retirees say they’re already seeing the effects with longer phone wait times.

Administration officials have argued the RIFs are being led by the agencies and aren’t specifically directed by the White House. Judge Illston said the evidence belies that.

“The evidence plaintiffs have presented tells a very different story: that the agencies are acting at the direction of the president and his team,” she wrote.

She had previously issued a temporary restraining order against carrying out the RIFs. Her new ruling is a preliminary injunction, a more lasting bar on the government, albeit one that can now be appealed.

Judge Illston said Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Mr. Trump in his first term, tried to get Congress to give them reorganization powers. Capitol Hill rebuffed them.

She said Mr. Trump’s current effort looks like an end-run.

“Put simply, in this case, defendants want the court to either declare that nine presidents and twenty-one Congresses did not properly understand the separation of powers, or ignore how the executive branch is implementing large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations. The court can do neither,” the judge wrote.

The government argued that the courts didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case and it should instead be shunted to agency tribunals that handle federal labor relations matters.

Judge Illston acknowledged some courts have declined challenges to Trump action on that basis.

But Judge Illston said there are countervailing rulings as well, including cases that found attempts to shut down Voice of America or to fire probationary employees.

She said because the challenge before her isn’t to the agencies’ RIFs themselves, but rather to the question of whether they were illegally ordered from on high, that puts the case outside the realm of the agency tribunals and ripe for a judge’s consideration.

She also said the counties and cities and interest groups don’t have access to the tribunals, and so should be able to come directly to a judge.

The challenge was led by the American Federation of Government Employees and joined by two dozen other major labor unions, Democrat-controlled municipalities and left-leaning activist groups.

Amid a flurry of litigation, AFGE said its case is the broadest general challenge to Mr. Trump’s attempt at a makeover of the executive branch.

The coalition pronounced itself “gratified” by the decision.

“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,” the plaintiffs said.