NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans

[Anonymous]

In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a 14-day temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 9, 2025, halting the administration’s plans for mass layoffs across federal agencies. The judge emphasized that such sweeping actions require Congressional approval, noting that while the president has authority to seek changes within executive agencies, bypassing legislative processes undermines constitutional checks and balances.

Good news?

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/09/us/trump-news#federal-layoffs-trump-ruling

[Anonymous]

Fantastic news. This administration is trampling the Constitution, trying to destroy the balance of powers, randomly and wanted, closing offices and destroying lives, and reducing staff with cuts that have no rhyme or reason, terrorizing the federal, workforce, destroying services and the basic functioning of our federal government. This is not the way to try to run a country.

[Anonymous]

Just read the opinion and found it well reasoned. No doubt there are already many social media posts about lunatic left wing judges. The judge was courageous considering those posts and the correspondening threats against judges lately.

[Anonymous]

Does this toss a wrench in their plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this toss a wrench in their plans?

Only temporarily. It's for 2 weeks. The government has already appealed it. If the 9th Circuit doesn't stay it, the Supreme Court will, based on the other stays they've done.

But it is still progress. The more they are exposed for their lies and illegal actions, the better. The lie that these actions are performance-based. The lie that all these agencies chose to do this of their own free will. The actions taken to reorg and dismantle agencies without Congressional approval. The RIFs in the face of plenty of outstanding funding.

I work at an agency that is severely understaffed and leadership doesn't want to do RIFs because we will be unable to do our jobs - which are required by statute by the way. OMB is applying pressure to RIF anyway and clearly isn't going to take no for an answer. And then DOJ gets up in court and claims it's all voluntary and OMB is just making suggestions. Give me a freaking break. Look at what happened to the CPSC yesterday. Their leadership refused to RIF and OMB sent in DOGE to gut the place.

I am a lawyer and longtime government employee and I used to have such respect for DOJ and always thought, later in my career, I might apply to work there. No longer. Never ever. Those attorneys are either outright lying in their papers or they are submitting declarations that they know full well may be untrustworthy. I practice in court too and I would refuse to file rather than mislead the court. Making an argument is one thing, distorting and omitting facts is quite another. I knew some of these people - or thought I did -- and I am so, so disappointed and disillusioned.

[Anonymous]

Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

[Anonymous]

I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

[Anonymous]

It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lets say (hypothetically) this ruling is not overturned. What would it mean for the already riffed?

If the ruling is not overturned, it means Congress would need to include language in one of their upcoming bills that blesses the reorganizations. That might be easier said than done given that all members of Congress don't want the blowback from this policy, which so far is quite unpopular around the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

Ummm … people who care about the rule of law care. It’s far from “insider baseball esoteric.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

I thought this too. If Trump says at a cabinet meeting "wow it would be great for each agency to cut 15%" you better believe these loser bootlicker would hop to it with maybe possibly Rubio as an exception.

I think the impoundment argument is more interesting.