A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s sweeping plan to overhaul the federal government, which included mass layoffs and reorganization across various agencies. On May 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary restraining order that halts the implementation of these plans for two weeks, citing a lack of congressional authorization.
Judge Illston’s ruling is a significant setback for the Trump administration, which has been aggressively pursuing a strategy to reduce the size of the federal workforce and streamline government operations under the guidance of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The judge’s order applies to 21 federal departments and agencies, including the Departments of Labor, Energy, Commerce, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services.
In her 42-page ruling, Illston emphasized that while the president holds the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, he must do so lawfully and with the cooperation of Congress. "To make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies," she stated, "any president must enlist the help of his co-equal branch and partner, the Congress." This assertion echoes previous Supreme Court rulings that reinforce the necessity of legislative approval for significant government restructuring.
The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until May 23, 2025, during which time any new reduction-in-force notifications from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management will be paused. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments, which argued that the president cannot unilaterally implement such sweeping changes without legislative backing.
Attorneys for the government quickly filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, seeking to overturn Illston’s decision. They contended that the lawsuit was filed too late, as the relevant executive order had been issued nearly three months prior. However, Illston countered this argument, stating that the plaintiffs had reasonably waited to gather information about the potential harm caused by the executive order.
Thousands of federal employees have already been affected by the Trump administration’s downsizing efforts since he took office in January 2025. Reports indicate that at least 24,000 probationary employees have lost their jobs as part of this initiative. The plaintiffs in the case, including the American Federation of Government Employees and several cities, argued that the administration's actions not only threaten the livelihoods of federal workers but also jeopardize critical services provided to communities nationwide.
Illston’s order specifically blocks the execution of any existing reduction-in-force notifications and the issuance of new notices, protecting employees from immediate job loss. She noted that the ongoing layoffs could disrupt essential services, such as disaster relief programs, workplace safety inspections, and Social Security appointments.
During the hearing, Illston highlighted the importance of maintaining the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. "The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation," the coalition of plaintiffs stated in a joint release. "Laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve efficiency."
The ruling has been met with mixed reactions. Supporters of the administration argue that the president has the inherent authority to reorganize government agencies, while critics assert that such drastic measures require legislative oversight. The upcoming hearing on May 22 will further address the implications of the temporary restraining order and whether a longer-lasting injunction should be issued.
As the case unfolds, it underscores a broader debate about the scope of executive power and the role of Congress in overseeing significant changes to the federal government. The Trump administration has previously sought congressional approval for similar restructuring efforts, highlighting the contentious nature of this latest initiative.
Illston’s decision marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battles surrounding Trump’s presidency, particularly in the context of his efforts to reshape the federal landscape. The implications of this ruling could resonate well beyond the immediate context, potentially influencing future executive actions and the relationship between the branches of government.
The White House has yet to respond to requests for comment regarding the ruling. However, it is clear that the administration remains committed to pursuing its agenda, as evidenced by the swift appeal filed by Justice Department lawyers. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the fate of the federal workforce hangs in the balance, awaiting further developments in this high-stakes legal showdown.
