In the latest RIF news, a federal court has temporarily blocked agency layoffs tied to a controversial executive order. After agencies – including HHS – began implementing Reductions in Force (RIF) in response to President Trump’s Executive Order, a coalition filed a complaint in federal district court arguing the President lacks the power to restructure the federal government as that authority lies with Congress. The plaintiffs asked the court for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which the judge granted, and then a Preliminary Injunction, which the judge also granted, blocking the agencies from moving forward with RIFs.
The Administration quickly appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, by a 2–1 decision, allowed the injunction to remain in place. The Administration then filed an emergency motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to “stay” the preliminary injunction, which, if granted, would allow agencies to move ahead with the RIFs.
Under the Supreme Court’s rules, Justice Kagan will review the motion. She could decide unilaterally—likely by mid June—or refer the matter to the full Court, which would push the timeline out to about a month, and which is the more likely scenario.
For now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court. Continue reading below for a detailed explanation of the litigation challenging the President’s Executive Order.
Details of the Lawsuit Against the Executive Order
April 28, 2025 – A group consisting of nonprofit organizations, federal employee labor unions, and local governments filed a lawsuit against President Trump, several agencies involved in carrying out the RIFs including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and over 20 other agencies who planned RIFs.
The lawsuit asserts that the President’s Executive Order, called “Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Workforce Optimization Initiative,” violates the Constitution’s Separation of Powers framework which is supposed to ensure that the powers of the government are divided between the three equal but different branches, so that no one branch becomes too powerful.
The President, who gets his powers from Article II of the Constitution, according to the complaint, lacks authority to restructure federal agencies in the way required by the Executive Order. Instead, Congress, under Article I, is granted the power to create federal agencies, decide how they work, and decide the agencies’ budgets. The plaintiffs argue the President went too far by ordering major changes to federal agencies without Congress’s approval. These changes include requiring agencies to create plans to reduce staff and reorganize how they operate.
The lawsuit also claims that for the same reason, unless Congress gives them permission, agencies like the OMB, OPM, and DOGE don’t have the legal power to force other executive agencies to make staff cuts or go through big reorganizations.
Timeline of Key Legal Developments
May 1, 2025 – The plaintiffs asked the court for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to temporarily stop the Administration from taking any action until the case is reviewed. They specifically asked the court to stop agencies from carrying out the RIFs.
May 7, 2025 – The Administration filed an opposition to the motion for a TRO, arguing that the President has the authority to manage how government agencies operate and that the Executive Order was within the President’s powers.
May 9, 2025 – A hearing was held in front of Judge Illston, who granted the TRO for 14 days, saying that the President, OMB, OPM, and DOGE exceeded their legal powers.
May 14, 2025 – The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the federal government from carrying out the RIFs for a longer period, possibly until the case is fully decided.
May 22, 2025 – Judge Illston granted the preliminary injunction, ruling that she believes the plaintiffs are likely to win the case. She explained that the President can suggest changes to executive agencies, but he must follow the law and work with Congress when making major changes, and that while agencies can make changes on their own, the RIFs are based on the Executive Order.
May 23, 2025 – The Administration asked the Ninth Circuit to pause (or “stay”) the lower court’s order.
May 30, 2025 – The Ninth Circuit said no, agreeing with the lower court that the pause should stay in place.
June 2, 2025 – The Administration took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to cancel the injunction and let the cuts and restructuring move forward.
Next Steps in the Supreme Court
Soon, the Supreme Court will decide whether to pause the lower court’s order that blocks the government from moving forward with major job cuts in federal agencies.
The plaintiffs have until noon on May 9, 2025, to submit their response to the Supreme Court. Justice Kagan may then issue a decision or refer the case to the full Court for consideration. This is likely to happen based on recent cases, which would mean the motion may be decided over the course of the next month. If Justice Kagan acts on her own to deny the stay, the defendants may file a motion to have the whole Court reconsider the matter.
Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees Supreme Court Docket
The Bigger Picture: What This RIF News Means
It’s important to know that everything mentioned above has only been about the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs are trying to keep things the way they are, for now, until the full case can be heard. The main case hasn’t been decided yet, and that will happen much later back at the district court.
This case will shape the legal limits of executive authority in federal employment restructuring. For federal workers, agencies, and legal observers, this is the most significant RIF news development in recent memory.
Federal Practice Group is closely tracking all of the latest RIF news—and helping clients navigate what it means for their rights.