A federal judge in San Francisco is reportedly considering a temporary halt to the Trump administration’s extensive reforms of the federal government. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, appointed by President Clinton, conducted a hearing Friday concerning a lawsuit initiated by labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments. These groups argue that President Trump’s plans to significantly restructure the federal government, without congressional approval, violate the Constitution.
During the hearing, Judge Illston appeared to align with the plaintiffs, emphasizing Supreme Court precedent. She indicated that while the president can propose changes within agencies, such changes necessitate congressional collaboration.
The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order to pause further implementation of planned mass layoffs by the administration. While temporary restraining orders cannot be appealed, the government is expected to challenge any subsequent injunctions by the judge. Illston suggested that such an order might be necessary to preserve legislative power, pointing out that Trump had previously sought congressional approval for similar initiatives in his first term.
The Trump administration, represented by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton, argued that the plaintiffs’ request was inappropriate due to delays in filing the motion, suggesting that any urgency was self-imposed. Hamilton also stated that federal personnel matters should be addressed by administrative bodies established by Congress, not the courts.
Illston questioned whether Congress intended for issues of this magnitude, such as a government-wide overhaul, to be handled administratively. The plaintiffs, including various government employee unions and cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco, requested the court to declare the February 11 executive order, which directed agencies to prepare for layoffs and program closures, as unlawful. They aimed to suspend these restructuring plans, including issuing reduction-in-force notices and closing offices.
The Trump administration maintained that the executive order provided general guidance and required adherence to applicable laws. However, the plaintiffs’ representatives countered, asserting that agencies are acting not based on independent assessments but following directives from the president and his team. Leonard, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the executive order was a mandatory directive to commence layoffs as instructed by the president.
