Trump administration seeks stay of San Francisco judge's block on mass federal layoffs

Attorneys for the Trump administration asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday to stay a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in San Francisco blocking the Office of Management and Budget or other federal agencies from ordering large-scale firings and layoffs without congressional approval.

Maxwell A. Baldi, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice's civil division, argued in a motion that the order by Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Y. Illston "rests on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the separation of powers." American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO et al. v. Trump et al., 25-3030 (9th Circ., filed May 9, 2025).

Illston's two-week temporary restraining order, filed Friday afternoon after a hearing earlier in the day, agreed with unions and other plaintiffs that they were likely to succeed on at least some of their claims.

"The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch," wrote Illston, an appointee of Bill Clinton.

"Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime," she added.

Illston emphasized that her order was only temporary and instructed the Justice Department and the employee unions and their allies, including San Francisco and Santa Clara County, to file briefs on a proposed preliminary injunction.

The TRO affects 21 government agencies nationwide that have been ordered by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management to eliminate tens of thousands of employees in a Feb. 26 memorandum following an executive order by President Donald Trump.

The Trump administration filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit on Friday night but also asked for a stay both of the temporary restraining order and an order compelling document production.

"The harms to the Executive Branch are apparent from the court's order, which halts nearly every executive department from taking steps to implement the President's policy priorities," Baldi wrote. "To correct these errors and prevent further irreparable harm, this Court should grant a stay."

He asked a 9th Circuit panel to act on the Justice Department's motion by Thursday.

The complaint, one of many against the Trump administration and the president's executive orders, focuses on a familiar argument: that the executive branch cannot take certain actions - in this case, mass firings of government employees and the dismantling of federal agencies -- without the consent of Congress and is violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

"President Trump contends he was elected with a mandate to radically transform the size and organization of the entire federal government," wrote Danielle E. Leonard, an attorney with Altshuler Berzon LLP in San Francisco who represents the unions.

"Ignoring applicable constitutional law, he has engaged in a campaign unprecedented in American history: to eliminate entire federal agencies; drastically reduce the number of employees, functions, programs, and offices at others; terminate leases for government property; terminate government contracts; and sell off government property, all without Congressional authorization," she wrote.

Altshuler Berzon led another lawsuit against the firing of probationary employees that is pending before another San Francisco federal judge. Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted a preliminary injunction, which was upheld by a 9th Circuit panel.

But on April 8, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 to pause Alsup's injunction while the case is pending. Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees, 24A904 (S. Ct., filed March 24, 2025).

If the Justice Department fails in its bid to block the TRO, or if Illston grants a preliminary injunction, the legal fight is likely headed back to the justices. The judge instructed the plaintiffs to file their motion for a preliminary injunction by Wednesday, with the Trump administration's response due next Monday.

Aside from its motion to the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department asked Illston on Sunday to relieve the government of its obligation to disclose Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans. The plaintiffs' response is due Tuesday, Illston wrote in a Monday order. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO et al. v. Trump et al., 25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal., filed April 28, 2025).