This story was updated at 4:40 p.m. on Oct. 28 with additional details following a breaking news alert<\/p>\n
The Trump administration\u2019s latest round of federal employee layoffs will remain on hold, for now.<\/p>\n
A federal judge in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that will indefinitely block the Trump administration from proceeding with widespread reductions-in-force for about 4,000 federal employees, or issuing new RIF notices, while the case proceeds through the court.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston said her preliminary injunction will block the Trump administration from issuing any more RIF notices or implementing RIF notices that have been issued \u201cbecause of the shutdown.\u201d The preliminary injunction, however, will not block RIF notices that were sent before the shutdown.<\/p>\n
Illston said in a hearing Tuesday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that the driving force of these RIFs has been \u201cpolitical retribution.\u201d<\/p>\n
]]><\/p>\n
\u201cThe president said so,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that his administration is targeting \u201cDemocrat agencies\u201d through layoffs during the government shutdown. The Office of Management and Budget has also directed agencies, during the shutdown, to consider layoffs in programs that lack alternative funding sources and that don\u2019t align with the president\u2019s priorities.<\/p>\n
Illston\u2019s preliminary injunction comes after she granted a temporary restraining order on Oct. 15<\/a>, which blocked the Trump administration from carrying out its shutdown RIFs for two weeks.<\/p>\n Agencies typically don\u2019t carry out layoffs during a shutdown, but the\u00a0Office of Personnel Management updated its guidance<\/a>, exempting agency RIF procedures from the shutdown.<\/p>\n Illston said OMB and OPM\u2019s actions were also \u201clikely unlawful,\u201d after telling agencies that statutory mandates to carry out certain programs no longer apply during a government shutdown.<\/p>\n Justice Department attorneys representing the Trump administration, up until now, declined to defend the merits of the shutdown RIFs, and instead sought to get the case thrown out for procedural reasons.<\/p>\n Plaintiff unions representing federal employees have argued that RIF planning should not be exempt from a government shutdown, because it does not meet the criteria of protecting life or property.<\/p>\n ]]><\/p>\n But DOJ Senior Counsel Michael Velchik said there are \u201cmore reasons during a lapse in appropriations to engage in RIFs, not fewer.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf you don\u2019t have money coming in, you should be looking for ways to cut costs. This is true for a household, for a firm or for the government,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Velchik said furloughed employees are \u201cincurring future obligations to the federal taxpayer, who will then have to pay back wages for these individuals who are not working.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not just that they\u2019re not working on their normal duties, but they\u2019re working on duties that agency leaders have determined are no longer advancing presidential priorities,\u201d Velchik said.<\/p>\n Velchik said agencies deciding which employees are essential to keep working during a government shutdown helps \u201ccrystallize for policymakers what really should we be spending the American taxpayers\u2019 dollars on.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMorally, this is the right thing to do, and it\u2019s the democratic thing to do,\u201d he said. \u201cI mean, the president was elected on this specific platform. When the American people selected someone known, above all else, for his eloquence in communicating to employees that you\u2019re fired, this is what they voted for.\u201d<\/p>\n Velchik also echoed an argument made by the Office of Management and Budget that Congress allowing a government shutdown to occur means programs without funding are no longer statutorily mandated.<\/p>\n \u201cCongress has not appropriated money for those programs to be carried out,\u201d he said. \u201cIf Congress says, \u2018no money shall go to this,\u2019 that\u2019s a limitation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCurrently, Congress has not appropriated monies for certain activities. It has the opportunity to consider legislation that would appropriate monies going forward, as well as provide back pay retrospectively,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n ]]><\/p>\n OMB Director Russ Vought said earlier this month that Congress gave the Trump administration tacit approval to pursue layoffs once lawmakers failed to pass a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1.<\/p>\n \u201cCongress is saying we\u2019re not going to fund these programs by not passing the Republican continuing resolution. So if there\u2019s no funding for these programs, what would you have us do? Is it not to make an assumption that you don\u2019t intend to fund these in the future?\u201d Vought said.<\/p>\n Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing the unions leading the lawsuit, said a lapse in congressional appropriations is not the same as the elimination of statutory authority, because \u201cCongress will surely enact appropriations at some point in time.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a lapse in appropriations. That could justify \u2014 and does justify, under the law \u2014 furloughing employees. It does not justify permanently eliminating their positions. There has been no congressional authorization of that,\u201d Leonard said. \u201cThere has been no permanent removal of statutory authority.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCounsel is arguing that if Congress lets government funding lapse for one day, the president can fire the entire federal government. That is absurd,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n The preliminary injunction now covers eight plaintiff unions. The case originally protected members of the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees from layoffs.<\/p>\n Leonard said plaintiffs have no current plans to add more unions to the lawsuit, and that those actions were only necessary, once the Interior Department told the court<\/a> it was planning to \u201cimminently\u201d send RIF notices to over 2,000 of its employees.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was only when plaintiffs discovered that, that we had to scramble and move very quickly to protect the employees represented by unions within DOI we did that as quickly as possible,\u201d Leonard said.<\/p>\n Interior officials said the RIFs are not related to the ongoing government shutdown, but happened to coincide with it. Leonard said the department has been able to send RIF notices since July, when the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration broad authority<\/a> to proceed with layoffs, but waited until the shutdown to execute its long-awaited plans.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a lot for the government to say this is just a coincidence,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Leonard said the Trump administration has refused to provide details on which agencies are planning to issue more RIF notices. Vought said the administration is planning to send RIF notices to up to 10,000 federal employees.<\/p>\n \u201cWe still don\u2019t know where the other agencies are. Are they forcing people to prepare RIF notices, as we speak, Your Honor, and just refusing to reveal that to this court? We think it\u2019s incredibly likely that is the case,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n