First round to the good guys, but there’s a lot more to happen.
Harris County was among local governments and others claiming victory Saturday after a judge halted the Trump administration’s efforts to lay off federal employees.
The county, local governments, labor unions and nonprofits sued the Trump administration in the Northern District of California in late April. The suit accused President Donald Trump of violating the constitution by seeking to transform government agencies through large-scale layoffs, some which the plaintiffs alleged only Congress was empowered to do.
“This is a big win for Harris County and communities across the country that rely on the federal government to function,” Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said in a Saturday news release. “It’s a win for residents, for federal workers, and for anyone who believes government should work for the people — not be torn apart by President Trump’s overreach.”
The order puts on hold new and existing layoffs under Trump’s Executive Order 14210, which outlined his vision for the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and granted it the authority to implement sweeping personnel changes.
Menefee said the firings had resulted in a decline in quality across many government services, including the Veteran’s and Social Security administrations.
“President Trump would have Harris County residents stuck with slower Social Security services, longer VA wait times, slower disaster response, and the loss of federal grants that fund food safety and emergency preparedness,” Menefee said. “We filed this lawsuit to stop him.”
The temporary restraining order issued by the San Francisco judge overseeing the case pauses all new and existing layoffs ordered by DOGE cross federal agencies for two weeks. Attorneys for the Trump administration appealed the order the same day it was issued, according to court records.
See here for the background. Law Dork gets into the weeds.
“It is the prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government. But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his co-equal branch and partner, the Congress,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in the decision. “Federal courts should not micromanage the vast federal workforce, but courts must sometimes act to preserve the proper checks and balances between the three branches of government.“
Illston, a Clinton appointee who will have served on the Northern District of California bench for 30 years later this month, issued the ruling following a Friday hearing in the case brought by unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments to challenge the “large-scale reductions in force“ set in motion by President Donald Trump’s February 11 executive order purporting to “Implement[] The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.“
“The Court notes … that its order does not prevent the President from exercising his Article II powers, it prevents him from exercising Congress’ Article I powers,” Illston wrote at one point in the 42-page ruling, a reference to the portions of the Constitution laying out executive and legislative powers, respectively.
As detailed in the ruling, Trump’s executive order was followed by a joint memo from the heads of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management on February 26 implementing Trump’s order. That, in turn, was to be followed by “Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans (“ARRP”),“ which were required, under the February 26 memo, to be submitted “to OMB and OPM for review and approval“ in two phases in March and April.
The plaintiffs challenge Trump’s order; the related actions of OMB, OPM, and the non-department Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE); and the agency ARRPs.
Although Illston lays out a meticulous case for her ruling, the bottom line is that she found that, with his actions — specifically, with these actions being taken without congressional authorization — Trump likely has gone too far.
“Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the President’s Executive Order 14210 is ultra vires” — or beyond the president’s legal authority, in other words illegal — “as the President has neither constitutional nor, at this time, statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch,” Illston wrote.
The case, filed on April 28, is led by lawyers from Altshuler Berzon LLP and Democracy Forward, with support from many other lawyers due to the broad array of plaintiffs.
In issuing her TRO, Illston blocked any further implementation of the executive order for the next two weeks and also set forth a schedule such that a preliminary injunction motion can be briefed over the next two weeks, with a hearing set for 10:30 a.m. PT May 22.
It goes on from there, so read on if you want the full treatment. It is not clear to me exactly what the local effect will be, now and in the future however the case goes, but there’s no reason to believe that anything the Trump administration is doing is beneficial, well thought-out, or in good faith. Fight on every front and then fight some more.