SAN FRANCISCO — A ruling by an appellate court on Friday maintained a halt on the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce, leaving the decision in place as legal proceedings continue. The decision from a divided panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that the proposed workforce cuts could extensively impact areas like food safety and veterans’ health care. As a result, the court determined that the reduction should remain suspended during the ongoing lawsuit.
One judge on the panel dissented, asserting that President Donald Trump likely possessed the authority to downsize the executive branch, highlighting an independent process for workers to challenge actions taken against them. The Republican-led administration had been seeking an urgent lifting of an injunction previously imposed by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco. This injunction was in response to a suit initiated by labor unions, city governments, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the advocacy group Democracy Forward.
Additionally, the Justice Department had appealed Judge Illston’s ruling to the Supreme Court, amidst a series of emergency appeals claiming that federal judges had exceeded their jurisdiction. The central issue in the lawsuit was the legality of the Trump administration’s efforts to cut back the federal workforce.
President Trump has repeatedly shared his belief that his election was a mandate to transform the federal government, appointing billionaire Elon Musk to spearhead changes through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As a result of the administration’s efforts, many federal workers have been dismissed or have opted for deferred resignation programs, while others face suspension. Although there’s no official count, it’s estimated that over 75,000 federal employees accepted deferred resignation, with numerous probationary workers already dismissed.
Illston’s directive mandates various federal agencies to suspend implementation of Trump’s executive order on workforce reduction, which he signed in February, along with a subsequent memorandum from DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. In her decision, Illston, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, emphasized that while presidents can direct significant changes within agencies, Congressional cooperation is essential. In contrast, government attorneys argue that the executive order and accompanying memo merely established guiding principles for agencies to adopt at their discretion.