Judge Illson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Tuesday made a previous temporary injunction permanent, prohibiting President Donald Trump from dismissing dozens of federal employees.
“Today’s ruling is another victory for federal workers and our ongoing efforts to protect their jobs from an administration hellbent on illegally firing them,” said Lee Saunders, President of AFSCME – a federal workers union.
The ruling followed comments from Office of Management and Budget Director Russel Vought, who said the administration planned to terminate up to 10,000 federal employees as part of a government shutdown measure known as a Reduction in Force, or RIF.
Approximately 4,000 workers have already received RIF notices. The announcement prompted several federal employee unions to file a lawsuit late last month in anticipation of the mass layoffs.
Roughly two weeks ago, members of Congress — including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — voiced strong opposition to the move, describing the planned firings as “arbitrary,” as reported by Zero Hedge.
“Regardless of whether federal employees have been working without pay or have been furloughed, their work is incredibly important to serving the public,” Collins said Oct. 10.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, said in a statement that the Trump administration was “callously choosing to hurt people” – while Democrats have also claimed that Trump is a “king” who ostensibly can do as he pleases.
Apparently not.
The judge’s order extends to a range of agency actions, including efforts to carry out an email from the Office of Management and Budget that urged agencies to consider Reduction in Force measures in the event of a government shutdown, as well as related guidance from the Office of Personnel Management.
Illson, a Clinton appointee, also directed agencies to halt any further steps to implement the RIF notices that were issued on Friday, according to FedScoop.
Illson’s decision followed a hearing last week in which she signaled her intent to grant the order. During the proceedings, she said the plaintiff unions were likely to prove that the government’s actions were unlawful.
In her opening remarks, Illson criticized inaccuracies in the government’s estimates of the number of employees affected and said the administration’s approach appeared poorly planned.
“It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated,” Illston said.
Illston also said that the RIFs appear to be “politically motivated,” though she didn’t explain how that made the actions unconstitutional or illegal.
She cited specifically to language in the OMB memo blaming Democrats, as well as a post to social media by President Donald Trump in which he said that he that he was meeting with Vought “to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut” and that he couldn’t believe Democrats would him give him “this unprecedented opportunity.”
“The politics that infuses what’s going on is being trumpeted out loud in this case,” Illston said. “And there are laws which govern how we can do the things that we do … including laws that govern how we do RIFs, and the activities being undertaken here are contrary to the laws.”
The government countered that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm. Elizabeth Hedges, a Department of Justice attorney representing the administration, argued that the court should dismiss the lawsuit and deny the motion for a temporary restraining order, contending that such an order would expire before the RIFs took effect and that any employment-related harm could be remedied later, FedScoop reported.
“We’re still dealing with classically reparable harms of the sort that the Supreme Court has said are reparable — loss of employment, loss of benefits, loss of wages — those are the sorts of things that a body like the [Merit Systems Protection Board] can remedy,” Hedges said.