Judge enjoins shutdown-related federal layoffs
Questions whether administration can use shutdown to permanently restructure federal workforce
Questions whether administration can use shutdown to permanently restructure federal workforce
On Oct. 15, 2025, Judge Susan Illston granted a temporary restraining order pausing shutdown-related RIFs.
United States District Judge, Northern District of California
U.S. District Judge for Northern District of California issued Oct. 15 temporary restraining order blocking all federal layoffs. Found administration failed to follow RIF procedures and did not justify why specific positions needed elimination. Order protected 4,000+ workers pending litigation.
White House Budget Office Director
Issued the OMB 'Lapse Memorandum' that directed agencies to consider RIFs during the shutdown and publicly forecast layoffs 'north of 10,000.'
Plaintiff labor unions
Filed suit seeking to enjoin shutdown-related RIFs and obtained temporary and then preliminary injunctive relief.
True
On Oct. 15, 2025, Judge Susan Illston granted a temporary restraining order halting shutdown-related RIF notices.
The court record shows a temporary restraining order issued on Oct. 15, 2025, pausing RIF activity. [1] The AP reported the TRO and that Illston pressed the government over more than 4,100 layoff notices. [2] The Guardian also reported that Illston said she was 'inclined to grant the plaintiff's motion' and that the TRO was in effect. [3]
Sources
True
On Oct. 28, 2025, Judge Illston entered a preliminary injunction enjoining shutdown-related RIFs and pausing implementation of notices issued on or after Oct. 10, 2025.
The filed order dated Oct. 28, 2025, explicitly grants a preliminary injunction enjoining shutdown-related RIFs while the case proceeds. [1] News reporting confirmed the court paused implementation of RIF notices sent during the shutdown. [2][3]
Sources
False
Judge Illston ruled that the layoffs definitively violated the Antideficiency Act.
The Oct. 28 order rests on Administrative Procedure Act claims and finds the agencies' actions likely exceed authority and are arbitrary and capricious. [1] The court did not issue a final ruling that the Antideficiency Act was violated. [1][2]
Sources
False
OMB Director Russell Vought said the layoffs would be 'north of 10,000,' not capped at 4,100.
The public record shows OMB Director Russell Vought said the layoffs could be 'north of 10,000,' while agency filings to the court reported roughly 4,000–4,100 notices as of mid-Oct.. [1] The statement that layoffs were capped at 4,100 is incorrect. [1][2]
Sources
Disputed
The court found evidence that the RIF process was chaotic and that HR staff were unable to support impacted employees during the 60-day RIF notice period.
The court noted that a RIF typically includes a 60-day pre-termination period under 5 U.S.C. § 3502 and that HR offices were often furloughed or RIF'd, leaving employees without assistance. [1] The government contended that courts lack jurisdiction over agency employment decisions and defended its process. [1][2]
Sources
Disputed
The unions' lawsuit alleges the OMB Lapse Memorandum directed agencies to use the shutdown to restructure programs inconsistent with the President's priorities.
The court quoted the OMB 'Lapse Memorandum,' which directed agencies to consider RIFs for programs whose funding lapsed and that were 'not consistent with the President's priorities.' [1] The administration says the guidance addressed funding lapse consequences and lawfully prioritized operations. [1][2]
Sources
If you received a RIF notice, contact your union immediately.
civic action
Unions in the case are representing affected members and can advise on administrative and court steps during the injunction period.