What the RIF just happened?

How to understand courts’ rulings pausing RIFs and agency closures

Dear Civil Servant,

“That’s not how it’s supposed to work.”

As the Administration has attempted to reshape the federal bureaucracy through mass layoffs and the shuttering of agencies and offices, we’ve heard this again and again from civil servants. It turns out, many courts agree: This is not how the large-scale dismantling, shrinking, and reorganization of the federal bureaucracy is supposed to work. The president alone doesn’t have the power to restructure or dismantle the federal government. That power largely belongs to Congress.

But what do the legal battles mean for you? We understand that the litigation over RIFs (reductions in force, or layoffs) and agency closures is hard to follow. With some amazing partners, we’ve been helping litigate AFGE et al. v. Trump et al., where the judge recently issued a preliminary injunction putting RIFs on hold at 22 agencies. This newsletter will break down that ruling and will highlight a handful of other cases where courts have stopped — for now — mass layoffs and dismantling of agencies.

Before we dive in, a thank you: Civil servants stepping up and sharing their stories have been critical to those cases’ early successes. And if you have a story to share now, there’s a place for that, too.

FAQs: AFGE et al. v. Trump et al. (or “the Big RIF case”)

What’s this case about?

Executive Order 14210, titled “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative” says that it “commences a critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy.” Together with a memorandum issued by OMB and OPM, the Executive Order directs agencies to plan for large-scale RIFs and reorganizations by submitting Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans (ARRPs) to OMB and OPM for approval. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs put forth a significant amount of evidence showing that the president’s centralized agencies (OMB, OPM, and DOGE) were calling the shots, and that agencies had started to RIF huge numbers of federal employees as a result—with more extensive cuts planned.

Along with co-counsel, we have been fighting in court to stop the RIFs, reorganizations, and dismantling of federal agencies pursuant to this Executive Order. A few weeks ago, a federal court in California temporarily paused some of the RIFs nationwide. Late last Thursday night, the court issued what’s known as a preliminary injunction, more formally ordering all of the agency defendants in the case (listed below) to press pause on RIFs, reorganizations, and certain dismantling activities. Unlike some other cases, this case was not against one or a handful of agencies — it was against 22 agencies. (That’s why we tend to call the case “Big RIF”).

Does this case affect my agency?

If you work at one of the following agencies, yes:

• USDA

• Commerce

• Energy

• HHS

• HUD

• Interior

• Labor

• State

• Treasury

• Transportation

• VA

• AmeriCorps

• Peace Corps

• EPA

• GSA

• NLRB

• NSF

• SBA

• SSA

Those agencies were named as defendants in the lawsuit, so the judge’s ruling applies to them. The ruling covers these agencies across the country (not just in California, where the case was filed). OMB, DOGE, and OPM were also named as defendants in the lawsuit, which describes them as the centralized agencies driving decisionmaking.

What does it mean that the judge “issued a preliminary injunction”? What does that do?

A preliminary injunction is a court’s way of hitting pause on the status quo while a case is litigated. Lawsuits can take time, and when the claims look relatively strong — likely to succeed on the merits, among a few other considerations — a judge can temporarily stop the challenged action during the lawsuit to give the court some time to sort out the legal issues. That’s what happened here: The judge had previously issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that hit pause on RIFs and reorganizations for two weeks, but this pause is supposed to last longer.

Here, the court’s preliminary injunction orders the defendants to stop implementing Executive Order 14210. That means existing RIFs are paused, no new RIFS can happen, and inter-agency reorganizations of functions must stop, among other things.

OK, I get that the RIFs and reorganizations are paused, but what exactly does my agency have to stop doing?

In general, all covered agencies have to stop implementing Executive Order 14210. This means they need to:

• Stop any further implementation of the Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans (ARRPs);

• Stop executing any existing RIF notices. This means agencies should not effectuate the final separation of employees via RIFs;

• Stop issuing further RIF notices;

• Stop placing employees on administrative leave, insofar as they are doing so to implement the RIF EO; and/or

• Stop transferring functions or programs between the covered agencies.

Think of it as a “stop work” order for the machinery that was working to effectuate the RIFs.

OMB and OPM must also stop approving, disapproving, or certifying ARRPs. Those agencies must also stop waiving statutorily-mandated RIF notice periods (formally and informally, expressly, and indirectly), and DOGE must stop ordering agencies to cut programs or staff in conjunction with implementing RIFs.

What *can* the agencies do?

The court was pretty clear. Agencies can continue to (1) engage in internal planning and (2) seek legislative approval for their plans. Specifically, the Order says that it “shall not limit federal agency defendants from presenting reorganization proposals for legislative approval or engaging in their own internal planning activities without the involvement of OMB, OPM, or DOGE, provided that they do not implement any of the prohibited actions...”

Are people at those agencies who received RIF notices… unfired? Are they still on administrative leave? How does this all work?

This answer is complicated! Some of what the court ordered is what’s called “backward looking relief,” which means it is an attempt to undo something that’s been done. Here, the court told the defendants they needed to (1) rescind any RIF notices already issued pursuant to the EO and (2) bring people back to work from administrative leave.

There’s a big “but” attached to these rulings: The court “stayed” — paused — its own rulings on backward-looking relief until the government’s anticipated appeals of the preliminary injunction are over. The court expressed concern that if it allowed its ruling to take effect, but then if its decision were undermined on appeal, federal workers would get unnecessarily bounced back and forth. If appeals courts agree with the district court that the preliminary injunction was appropriate, the backward-looking relief will go into effect. For now, the government could decide to keep people on administrative leave who were already on administrative leave or to reinstate them.

But won’t the government just appeal this?

Oh yes, they already have — immediately after the judge’s ruling, the government appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. But unless and until the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court disagrees with the preliminary injunction, it is still valid.

As we’ve said before, we wish we could provide more certainty in these uncertain times. The Ninth Circuit docket is here, if you want to track it more closely.

I’m interested in the law nerd stuff! What was the legal basis for the judge’s decision?

The legal basis for the decision is the separation of powers — the principle that we have three co-equal branches of government, each with its own powers that can’t be usurped by another branch. As the court summarized:

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.

What role did civil servants play in securing this preliminary win?

Your stories shed light on why allowing RIFs to continue harms not only federal workers, but all of the American people who depend on your public services. While the government put forth no evidence at all in the Big RIF case (AFGE v. Trump), the Plaintiffs amassed well over a thousand pages of accounts of how the RIFs and reorganizations worked and what effects they had. Much of that evidence came from civil servants.

For example, the court’s order cited stories about the projected closure of a CDC Pittsburgh office that researches health hazards for miners, retirees in need of assistance who have struggled to speak with employees at Social Security Administration, and rural farmers unable to reach USDA workers about their loans or construction projects. Civil servants speaking out also bolstered public reporting on RIFs and reorganizations, which the case relied upon to shore up its evidence of harm.

What if my agency wasn’t a defendant in the Big RIF Case?

If your agency is not listed as a defendant in the Big RIF case, there may be other litigation specifically aimed at stopping attempts to dismantle it. Though Executive Order 14210 is aimed at general reorganization across the government, some agencies have been the subjects of targeted Executive Orders. Often, though not always, parties sued to stop the effects of those Executive Orders. If you work at one of the following agencies, there may be litigation targeted specifically at your place of work. An evergreen reminder that things can change quickly in litigation. We’ve linked to the court docket for each case, which we encourage you to check:

• Department of Education

  • State of New York v. McMahon: On May 22, a judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to hit pause on its RIFs and related actions at the Department of Education.

• United States Institute of Peace

  • United States Institute of Peace v. Jackson: On May 19, a judge granted summary judgment to USIP, holding that the president does not have the power to remove USIP board members. On May 23, she denied the government’s motion to stay (pause) that ruling pending appeal.

• Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (FMCS)

  • State of Rhode Island v. Trump: On May 6, a judge issued a preliminary injunction, halting layoffs and funding cuts at IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS

  • American Library Association v. Sonderling et al.: The American Library Association and others sued separately challenging efforts to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services. On May 1, a judge issued a TRO temporarily pausing restructuring; that TRO has been extended through May 29, 2025.

• Americorps

  • State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service - Plaintiffs have asked the court for a preliminary injunction; there’s no ruling as of this writing.

• National Endowment for the Humanities

  • American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald - Plaintiffs have asked the court for a preliminary injunction; no ruling as of this writing.

• National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

  • National Nurses United v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - The case is at an early stage; there is no court decision yet.

Have info you want to share?

From Day 1, we’ve known that civil servants speaking up and speaking out would be critical to preserving our federal government and its critical programs and services. You’ve been through a lot, but don’t let anyone tell you your voice doesn’t matter. It does.

Contribute your information to aid efforts at pushing back: Our friends at Democracy Forward are collecting information about the scope and magnitude of impact of the Trump administration's employment actions taken against federal workers. This data will be used to aid and inform our response to these actions, including pursuing potential legal remedies. None of your personal information will be disclosed without your permission. If your employment has been impacted by a RIF, or if your job has been reclassified to Schedule Policy/Career ("Schedule PC,” formerly referred to as Schedule F), you can share your information here.

Noncompliance information in the Big RIF Case: If you read the FAQ section on AFGE et al v. Trump et al. above and thought to yourself, “hey, I don’t think my agency is following these rules,” then we’ve set up a way for you to get in touch: You can email AFGEvTrump_info@protectdemocracy.org and let us know what you’re seeing on the ground. (We apologize that, due to volume, we aren’t responding to each email.)

There’s still time to comment on Schedule PC. Our last newsletter encouraged you to submit comments in the Schedule Policy Career (Schedule PC, formerly known as Schedule F) rulemaking. OPM has extended the deadline for comments until June 7.

What we’re reading

• Information from the Partnership for Public Service’s FedSupport Hub. Consider registering for the panel today (May 28) at 6:00 Eastern, What to know about RIFs, relocation and reassignment.

• Partnership for Public Service’s 100 Harms in 100 Days

• Who is Government? A collection of insightful essays about public service is now a published book.

• Being a mom in the federal government wasn’t easy. Trump made it “impossible.“

---

This publication should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Protect Democracy. This publication also contains hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Protect Democracy does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.