Appeals Court Halts Federal Layoffs
A federal appeals court has upheld a freeze on layoffs across FDA and other major federal agencies, rejecting an effort by the Trump administration to lift the ban and likely setting the stage for a Supreme Court review. The court sided with a coalition of unions, advocacy groups, and municipalities that sued over the administration’s recent workforce reduction plans.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the administration’s emergency request to overturn a lower court’s injunction (see earlier story) that blocks most agency reorganizations and reductions in force (RIFs). The panel found that allowing the layoffs to proceed could cause “irreparable injury” and said the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their legal claims. The court also determined that the government’s interests did not outweigh the potential harm to federal employees.
The court ruled that the federal government’s restructuring efforts exceeded legal authority (ultra vires) and violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing binding changes without public notice or comment. The court emphasized the severe harm to federal workers and public services, such as health care and food safety, concluding that the government had not demonstrated any likelihood of success on appeal.
Writing for the majority, judge William Fletcher (D) pointed to several agencies already undergoing or planning significant layoffs, criticizing the administration for failing to provide a clear rationale. “Defendants have yet to offer any evidence pointing to any explanation or justification for these sweeping RIFs beyond a general and undifferentiated desire for a reduction in the number of people on the government’s payroll,” Fletcher wrote. “It is difficult to imagine how the sheer volume of RIFs could be explained by any individualized need or purpose of a given agency.”
The ruling also emphasized the broad harm caused by the layoffs, which impacted hundreds of thousands of workers and disrupted vital services, including food safety, disaster relief, and veterans’ health care. “The record indicates that what the defendants have sought to do is anything but ‘in the ordinary course,’” the court wrote. It found no merit in the government’s claim that back pay would suffice as a remedy, noting the long-term damage to both federal agencies and the public.
In an accompanying dissenting opinion, judge Consuelo Callahan (R) countered that the president retains broad authority over the executive branch, including the ability to direct agencies to terminate staff.
The administration had previously asked the Supreme Court to lift a temporary restraining order (TRO) that halted the layoffs but withdrew that request after a preliminary injunction replaced the TRO. Now, with the appeals court siding against it, the administration is expected to again seek relief from the high court.