Key Takeaways
- A federal judge in San Francisco is set to reverse the terminations of hundreds of federal employees who were laid off during the recent government shutdown.
- The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association argued that agencies that finalized reductions in force during the shutdown violated a stopgap spending bill passed by Congress.
- The judge’s order will impact approximately 680 federal employees, including nearly 250 Foreign Service officers at the State Department, 200 employees at the General Services Administration, 150 at the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and nearly 80 at the Small Business Administration.
- The Trump administration has followed a narrower interpretation of the stopgap spending bill, and has only reinstated federal employees who received reduction in force notices between October 1 and November 12.
- The judge’s ruling is seen as a victory for federal employees and the rule of law, with union leaders calling the administration’s actions "unlawful" and "egregious."
Introduction to the Case
A federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Susan Illston, has indicated that she will reverse the terminations of hundreds of federal employees who were laid off during the recent government shutdown. This decision comes after federal employee unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, asked the court to rescind layoffs at several departments, including Education, State, and the Small Business Administration. The unions argued that the agencies that finalized these reductions in force during the shutdown violated a stopgap spending bill passed by Congress, which prohibited layoffs through January 30, 2026.
The Stopgap Spending Bill
The continuing resolution passed by Congress on November 12 states that no federal funds may be used to initiate, carry out, implement, or otherwise notice a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees within any department between November 12, 2025, and January 30, 2026. Additionally, any reduction in force proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken by an executive agency between October 1, 2025, and the date of enactment shall have no force or effect. The judge’s ruling suggests that the administration’s interpretation of this bill was too narrow, and that the layoffs that occurred during the shutdown were indeed prohibited.
The Judge’s Ruling
Judge Illston said in a hearing that she will "grant the motion" for a preliminary injunction requested by the unions, citing the "chaotic nature" of the reductions in force. She noted that the continuing resolution explicitly prohibited layoffs through January 30, 2026, but that some agencies were still proceeding with reductions in force. The judge’s order will impact approximately 680 federal employees, including nearly 250 Foreign Service officers at the State Department, 200 employees at the General Services Administration, 150 at the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and nearly 80 at the Small Business Administration.
The Administration’s Response
The Trump administration has argued that rescinding layoffs now would be "logistically a big lift" for agencies, especially if the courts later allow those reductions in force to proceed. The administration’s attorney, Brad Rosenberg, suggested that employees should bring their individual cases before the Merit Systems Protection Board, rather than seeking a preliminary injunction. However, the unions argue that the mandate from Congress was clear, and that agencies should "nullify those reductions in force" to restore employees to their employment status and provide clarity.
The Impact on Federal Employees
The judge’s ruling is seen as a significant victory for federal employees, who have faced "real and ongoing harm" as a result of the layoffs, including eviction notices and unpaid bills. The unions argue that the administration’s actions have caused confusion and harm to employees, and that the court’s ruling will provide much-needed relief. The American Federation of Government Employees National President, Everett Kelley, called the ruling "another victory for federal employees and for the rule of law," while the American Foreign Service Association President, John Dinkelman, said that the administration’s efforts to proceed with reductions in force were "unlawful."
Conclusion
The federal judge’s ruling in this case has significant implications for federal employees and the administration’s ability to proceed with reductions in force. The judge’s decision suggests that the administration’s interpretation of the stopgap spending bill was too narrow, and that the layoffs that occurred during the shutdown were indeed prohibited. As the case continues to unfold, it is likely that the administration will appeal the ruling, and that the courts will continue to grapple with the complex issues surrounding reductions in force and the rights of federal employees.