President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law.”
Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale reductions in the federal Workforce.
Jonathan Turley
As we continue to await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the national or universal injunction question, the Trump administration has filed another request to block a district court order that prevents it from implementing a “reduction-in-force” policy. The request in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees could have major implications for other such orders even without the ruling in the birthright citizenship case.
On February 11, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order seeking to reduce the size of the federal government through RIFs. Exec. Order No. 14,210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (Feb. 14, 2025) (App., infra, 1a-3a).
President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law.” That would seem well within the authority of a president and consistent with many presidents who ran on downsizing the federal government. Indeed, President Bill Clinton issued such an order at the start of his presidency.
Indeed, under Section 3502 of Title 5, OPM is allowed to “prescribe regulations for the release of competing employees in a reduction in force.” 5 U.S.C. 3502(a). It lays out a process, including notice of a RIF (generally 60 days) to agency employees and their collective-bargaining representatives, including notice of “any appeal or other rights which may be available.” 5 U.S.C. 3502(d)(1)(A) and (2)(E).
In a case brought by unions and advocacy groups in San Francisco, Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale reductions in the federal workforce in what some believe is one of the greatest intrusions into Article II authority in the record number of injunctions coming from district courts.
In its filing on Monday, the Trump Administration maintains that Illston’s order “interferes with the Executive Branch’s internal operations and unquestioned legal authority to plan and carry out RIFs, and does so on a government-wide scale.”
The Supreme Court was previously asked to intervene but failed to take action. The Administration then withdrew that request after Illston issued a preliminary injunction. It then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which (in a divided decision) refused to lift the injunction.
The original order runs against the grain of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court declared in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 213 (2020), because “[t]he entire ‘executive power’ belongs to the President alone,” he must have “‘the power of * * * overseeing[] and controlling those who execute the laws.’”
Moreover, the executive order takes pains to avoid potential conflicts by stipulating that, in ordering any RIFs, agencies should ensure that they do not eliminate any “subcomponents” that are “statutorily required” or prevent the performance of “functions” that are “mandated by statute or other law.” It also expressly states that “[a]gencies should review their statutory authority and ensure that their plans and actions are consistent with such authority.”
Judge Illston’s order seems, to me, well outside of the navigational beacons for the courts under the separation of powers. There are potential issues raised with large-scale RIFs but her order sweeps far too broadly in my opinion.
How the Court deals with this matter could foreshadow the opinion to come on national or universal injunctions. However, even without the scope of the injunction, there are ample concerns over the underlying claim of judicial authority in this matter.
http://jonathanturley.org/
| 
