In her written decision, Judge Susan Illston strongly criticized the administration’s approach, describing it as reckless and poorly conceived. “It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated,” Illston said during last week’s hearing.
The judge, appointed under President Bill Clinton, found that the unions representing federal workers were likely to prove their case that the administration’s actions were unlawful. Illston noted that the Reduction in Force plans appeared to be “politically motivated,” pointing to a memo from the Office of Management and Budget that placed blame on Democrats, as well as a social media post by President Donald Trump that referenced meeting with OMB Director Russel Vought to discuss cutting “Democrat Agencies.”
“The politics that infuses what’s going on is being trumpeted out loud in this case,” Illston stated, stressing that federal laws set clear limits on how workforce reductions can be carried out. “There are laws which govern how we can do the things that we do … including laws that govern how we do RIFs, and the activities being undertaken here are contrary to the laws.”
Government attorneys countered that the unions had not shown irreparable harm, arguing that any employment-related losses — such as wages or benefits — could be corrected later by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Department of Justice attorney Elizabeth Hedges urged the court to dismiss the suit, maintaining that the layoffs had not yet taken effect and that a restraining order was unnecessary.
Judge Illston disagreed, making her temporary injunction permanent and ordering federal agencies to halt all related actions. The ruling stands as a significant check on executive power, reinforcing the legal protections afforded to federal employees.
As the decision reverberates through Washington, unions and lawmakers have hailed the judgment as a major step toward ensuring that government workers are shielded from politically driven employment decisions — a reminder that even in times of fiscal strain, the rule of law and the dignity of public service must prevail.