On Tuesday, October 28, 2025, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a sweeping injunction that indefinitely blocks the Trump administration from firing thousands of federal workers during the ongoing government shutdown, marking a dramatic escalation in a legal and political standoff that has disrupted Washington for nearly a month. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, comes as the shutdown entered its fourth week, making it the second-longest in U.S. history and inching closer to breaking the record set during President Trump’s first term.
Judge Illston’s decision follows a temporary restraining order she issued roughly two weeks earlier, which had already paused thousands of layoffs, known as reductions-in-force (RIFs), at agencies where federal employee unions are active. The preliminary injunction now bans the Trump administration from issuing any new RIF notices and halts the implementation of those already delivered—affecting more than 4,000 federal employees across eight agencies, according to court filings cited by NPR and TNND.
“It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost,” Judge Illston stated in court, as reported by TNND. “It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.” She described the workforce cuts as politically motivated, echoing arguments made by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor unions who brought the lawsuit. The judge cited evidence that the layoffs targeted so-called “Democrat programs,” suggesting the administration’s actions were intended as political retribution.
The Trump administration, led by President Donald Trump and budget director Russell Vought, had promised sweeping RIFs during the shutdown, arguing that agencies could no longer carry out certain programs without Congressional appropriations. The administration’s plan, detailed in court documents, aimed to eliminate more than 4,100 positions, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office already sending RIF notices to about 1% of its workforce and the Interior Department planning to lay off thousands more. In a public statement, Vought had previously suggested that more than 10,000 workers could receive RIF notices before the shutdown ends, according to NPR.
Michael Velchik, an attorney for the Justice Department, argued in court that the executive branch has the authority to conduct RIFs before, during, or after a lapse in Congressional appropriations, and that layoffs were justified as good policy to cut costs. “If you don’t have money coming in, you should be looking for ways to cut costs,” Velchik said, as reported by NPR. He also pointed to the guarantee of back pay for furloughed workers as a rationale for issuing widespread RIFs, despite the administration’s earlier suggestions that back pay might not be required without Congressional action.
But Judge Illston found the administration’s arguments unconvincing and potentially unlawful. She noted that the White House’s claim that agencies are no longer required to carry out certain programs during a shutdown was incorrect, and that the administration did not have the authority to order cuts at specific agencies. She also criticized the administration for possibly violating the Antideficiency Act—a 19th-century law governing federal spending during shutdowns—by exempting human resources employees from furloughs so they could process layoffs.
The judge’s ruling was underscored by emotional testimony from affected federal workers. In her remarks, Illston read from several declarations submitted by employees who had received layoff notices since October 1, 2025. One Housing and Urban Development worker, a combat veteran, wrote that he had “never gone through anything as traumatizing as what I am now experiencing,” while another employee facing a liver transplant said she would not be able to afford surgery if her RIF took effect. “Human lives are being dramatically affected by the activities we’re discussing,” Illston said in court, according to NPR.
Mayra Medrano, a program analyst with the Commerce Department’s Minority Business Development Agency and a member of the National Federation of Federal Employees, described the psychological toll of repeated layoff threats. “The constant threat of being fired, which has persisted for months, has caused me tremendous physical and mental distress,” Medrano wrote in a declaration filed with the court. She detailed experiencing a severe stress-induced seizure while on administrative leave earlier in the year and said the renewed threat of layoffs during the shutdown had been “traumatic and it will have a lasting impact on my health.”
Labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, have argued that the firings represent an overreach of executive power and violate federal law. Plaintiffs’ attorney Danielle Leonard told the court that a lapse in appropriations is not the same as an elimination of statutory authority, and that the government cannot simply tell agencies to ignore Congressional mandates. Leonard also accused the administration of using the shutdown as a pretext to target programs and employees deemed politically undesirable. In support, she cited comments made by Russell Vought before the 2024 election, in which he reportedly said he wanted government bureaucrats to be “traumatically affected” to the point of not wanting to go to work.
The Trump administration, for its part, has maintained that its actions are within legal bounds. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney, even invoked Trump’s “you’re fired” catchphrase in court, arguing that mass layoffs were part of the president’s mandate. “Like, this is what they voted for,” Velchik said, according to TNND. “Above all else, this is what he’s known for doing.”
Yet the judge’s order has left the fate of thousands of workers in limbo. Illston said she would clarify the exact scope of her injunction in writing, and planned to hold further hearings to determine whether certain layoffs—such as those already underway at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Interior Department—should be included. The administration, meanwhile, has not been fully forthcoming about where further RIFs might be planned, prompting the judge to consider requiring more transparency from the government.
The shutdown, which began on October 1, 2025, has now lasted 28 days, with Democrats and Republicans still at a political stalemate. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and other congressional Democrats have publicly condemned the administration’s approach, holding press conferences and urging a resolution to the crisis. The shutdown is now just a week away from surpassing the 35-day record set during Trump’s first term—a grim milestone that has left federal workers facing mounting uncertainty and hardship.
Back in August, Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor noted that roughly 300,000 federal workers would be gone from the government by the end of the year, with about 60,000 facing involuntary separation even before the shutdown began. Another 154,000 had accepted the administration’s “Fork in the Road” buyout offer, often out of fear they would be fired if they refused, according to NPR.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the legal battle, Judge Illston’s injunction has, for now, provided a measure of relief for thousands of federal employees caught in the crossfire of Washington’s latest partisan battle. As the shutdown drags on, the human cost of political brinkmanship remains front and center—a reminder that behind every policy dispute are real lives and livelihoods at stake.
