NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

These perceptions are because we all live in our own echochambers these days. Some people only know/watch media supporting RIFs. Others, the opposite. FWIW, the polling I've seen shows it to be quite unpopular in national polls, but polls can change over time. As a practical matter, there are certainly some red states/districts where they are unpopular, so it seems likely that at least a few repubs in both house and senate won't want to be on the record voting for rifs.

I never understand what can qualify for reconcliation, but this seems very budget-related. Why would they exclude it? My thought is that they put this in somewhat broad language into reconciliation (tying the language to cost savings) so it only needs 50% in the Senate and is broad language that gives them cover on the 'consulting Congress' provision yet doesn't provide quotable attack adds for republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

These perceptions are because we all live in our own echochambers these days. Some people only know/watch media supporting RIFs. Others, the opposite. FWIW, the polling I've seen shows it to be quite unpopular in national polls, but polls can change over time. As a practical matter, there are certainly some red states/districts where they are unpopular, so it seems likely that at least a few repubs in both house and senate won't want to be on the record voting for rifs.

I never understand what can qualify for reconcliation, but this seems very budget-related. Why would they exclude it? My thought is that they put this in somewhat broad language into reconciliation (tying the language to cost savings) so it only needs 50% in the Senate and is broad language that gives them cover on the 'consulting Congress' provision yet doesn't provide quotable attack adds for republicans.

Totally get the instinct—reconciliation sounds like a logical vehicle since the RIFs aim to cut costs. But under the Byrd Rule, it’s not enough for something to be budget-related. To qualify for reconciliation, the provision’s primary purpose must be fiscal, and any policy impact has to be merely incidental. That’s a really high bar.

The kind of broad language you’re describing—tied loosely to cost savings—would likely get struck by the Senate Parliamentarian if it’s really doing structural or programmatic work, like reorganizing agencies or gutting staffing for statutorily mandated services. Parliamentarians have blocked things far milder than that.

Even if they slipped it through, it wouldn’t necessarily count as a valid congressional “blessing” in court. Vague language won’t cure the APA or separation-of-powers issues if the RIFs hollow out legal mandates without statutory change. And politically, local impacts from layoffs or closed offices are always quotable—especially in a tough election cycle.

So yeah, reconciliation is tempting, but legally and procedurally, it’s a shaky path for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

These perceptions are because we all live in our own echochambers these days. Some people only know/watch media supporting RIFs. Others, the opposite. FWIW, the polling I've seen shows it to be quite unpopular in national polls, but polls can change over time. As a practical matter, there are certainly some red states/districts where they are unpopular, so it seems likely that at least a few repubs in both house and senate won't want to be on the record voting for rifs.

I never understand what can qualify for reconcliation, but this seems very budget-related. Why would they exclude it? My thought is that they put this in somewhat broad language into reconciliation (tying the language to cost savings) so it only needs 50% in the Senate and is broad language that gives them cover on the 'consulting Congress' provision yet doesn't provide quotable attack adds for republicans.

Totally get the instinct—reconciliation sounds like a logical vehicle since the RIFs aim to cut costs. But under the Byrd Rule, it’s not enough for something to be budget-related. To qualify for reconciliation, the provision’s primary purpose must be fiscal, and any policy impact has to be merely incidental. That’s a really high bar.

The kind of broad language you’re describing—tied loosely to cost savings—would likely get struck by the Senate Parliamentarian if it’s really doing structural or programmatic work, like reorganizing agencies or gutting staffing for statutorily mandated services. Parliamentarians have blocked things far milder than that.

Even if they slipped it through, it wouldn’t necessarily count as a valid congressional “blessing” in court. Vague language won’t cure the APA or separation-of-powers issues if the RIFs hollow out legal mandates without statutory change. And politically, local impacts from layoffs or closed offices are always quotable—especially in a tough election cycle.

So yeah, reconciliation is tempting, but legally and procedurally, it’s a shaky path for this.

You seem like you know this stuff better than me but couldn't they just do a rescission package validate the RIFs? Isn't the voting threshold for rescissions a majority standard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

That’s not what the polling says. And again - many federal workers are outside of DC. they have friends and family too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

That’s not what the polling says. And again - many federal workers are outside of DC. they have friends and family too.

This. MAGA have been showing up at Republican town halls demanding answers about their veteran family members getting laid off from the federal government as, obviously, that wasn't supposed to happen after voting for Trump. Kansas City is a Trump area but their local economy is tanking due to the huge number of federal layoffs happening there. Oh, a lot of MAGA outside of DC were also surprised when their fed contractor family members were laid off due to DOGE cutting contracts or grants. The contractors don't make the news though so you only hear about them second hand.

[Anonymous]

The general concept of cuts were and remain very popular, in large part because virtually everyone, even many big government progressives, knows there is a lot of waste in government.

When government functions that someone uses, whatever those might be, get visibly impacted, then those specific details of the cuts are viewed by those people as mistakes.

Different people rely on different parts of the government. In rural areas, the Dept of Ag cuts are having visible negative impacts, but urban cuts are not much of a a concern. Urbanites, by contrast, are concerned about cuts to Federal transit subsidies, and do not think much about the Dept of Ag cuts. People on Medicare care about that. People on welfare and/or Medicaid care about that.

In many circles, urban or suburban or rural, Musk has become the fall guy for cutting the "wrong" things. Trump supporters largely blame Musk for the "mistakes" and credit Trump (not Musk) for the "good" cuts.

Defense is popular even with Libertarians, in part because it is explicitly listed in the US Constitution as a Federal responsibility. This is partly why Defense appears to be having less total budget cut than some other areas that are not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution.

It is an interesting phenomenon to watch, provided one has not been personally impacted by it all. If it survives court challenges and if Congress does not restore funding in their FY2026 budget, then it might become a fundamental shift in the Federal scope and role. It is much more Draconian overall than anything Reagan attempted.

[Anonymous]

I do wonder where the money to pay for these early separations and what not is going to come from. AFAIK, Congress has not authorized these expenses and the laws against misappropriation of funds still exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder where the money to pay for these early separations and what not is going to come from. AFAIK, Congress has not authorized these expenses and the laws against misappropriation of funds still exist.

If someone leaves early enough in the fiscal year the leave payout and VSIP is less than their salary for the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

Even if the facts of some cases are bad for standing, there’s going to be a case with standing. It’s not going to be hard to show standing related to cuts in government employees. And once there is a case with standing the non-employee is not going to have to go through MSPB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

LOL. It seems you don’t know many people located outside this area. Most of the Fed workforce is located outside DC. RIFs (and Fed contractor layoffs) have happened all over and they have ripple effects to the local economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

LOL. It seems you don’t know many people located outside this area. Most of the Fed workforce is located outside DC. RIFs (and Fed contractor layoffs) have happened all over and they have ripple effects to the local economy.

The funniest thing is when these R congress people get pissed that the RIFs are happening in their districts and not just DC. Or when research grants get cut for universities in their districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

I agree. Cuts are very popular. There’s a whole segment of America that’s blue collar or service sector that’s thrilled when white collar people lose their jobs. In my opinion their anger should be with the ceos who are making $$$ and not feds making 85k on average but all they see is income inequality. The richest fed makes like 250k? And those are the very top level ones. The majority, per doge, make 85k on average.

I have relatives who actually thought the cuts were strategic and purposeful for efficiency. When I explained to them that they were basically paying anyone who wants to leave to do so. Many are already about to retire. Attorneys and IT people who the government needs but has trouble hiring. All new hires regardless of position. They were shocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty popular outside of DC.

You obviously live in DC. Nope, people in red states found out their relatives working at SSA or the VA or DOD contracts (fellow Trump voters even) were laid off by their savior. Others are too old to use DOGE's internet/app based SSA systems and are pissed the Gen Z DOGE kids took away phone applications now requiring the elderly go in person and wait 4 hrs+. Just wait until DOGE cuts SSA field offices.

I don't think you know many people located outside if this area

The cuts are popular.

I agree. Cuts are very popular. There’s a whole segment of America that’s blue collar or service sector that’s thrilled when white collar people lose their jobs. In my opinion their anger should be with the ceos who are making $$$ and not feds making 85k on average but all they see is income inequality. The richest fed makes like 250k? And those are the very top level ones. The majority, per doge, make 85k on average.

I have relatives who actually thought the cuts were strategic and purposeful for efficiency. When I explained to them that they were basically paying anyone who wants to leave to do so. Many are already about to retire. Attorneys and IT people who the government needs but has trouble hiring. All new hires regardless of position. They were shocked.

Their “surprise” and ignorance is the entire problem here.

Nobody seems to know what the government does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?

The appellate courts are casting doubt on whether a non-employee plaintiff can have standing. The Supreme Court stayed the first NDCA probationary termination injunction on this ground. A stay pending appeal and disposition of cert.

I haven't seen a reasoned opinion denying standing to these non-employee plaintiffs. The problem is that everything is being decided in an emergency posture (granting or denying emergency stays on injunctions) and the appellate courts are shooting from the hip, granting or denying based on their idealogical predispositions. The 4th Circuit, for example, in overturning Judge Bredar's decision on the probationaries, simply said there may look to be standing problems. And that was it. The district court judge, on the other hand, made a very detailed argument analyzing standing and found standing. Same with the case in California for the probationaries. No reasoned, let alone persuasive, opinion from the Supreme Court in granting the government's stay, in the fact of very detailed and persuasive arguments from the lower courts finding standing.