A federal judge in California on Friday issued a temporary restraining order halting President Donald Trump’s sweeping attempt to restructure the federal government through mass layoffs and agency overhauls, declaring the initiative an unlawful exercise of executive power. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a broad coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofit organizations that described the changes as “the unconstitutional dismantling of the federal government by the president of the United States on a scale unprecedented in this country’s history and in clear excess of his authority.”
Since returning to office in January, President Trump has pursued what he describes as a full-scale government efficiency initiative, executed through the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed in practice by billionaire Elon Musk. Federal agencies were instructed to cooperate with DOGE to identify and eliminate “duplicative roles,” close regional offices, reduce outside contracting, and automate routine work. Musk, who also serves as CEO of Tesla, required federal employees to submit weekly bullet points justifying their positions or face termination, a policy that immediately drew both internal resistance and external legal challenges.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California agreed with plaintiffs that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority. “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,” Illston wrote in her 42-page ruling. “Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the president from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office.”
“Indeed,” she added, “the court holds the president likely must request congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime.”
The plaintiffs, which include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Main Street Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the cities of San Francisco, Baltimore, and Chicago, welcomed the ruling.
“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,” the coalition said in a joint statement. “Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government—laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that. We are gratified by the court’s decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds.”
The lawsuit was filed on April 28 by legal teams from Democracy Forward, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Protect Democracy, the Public Rights Project, and the State Democracy Defenders Fund. Described by the plaintiffs as “the largest and most significant challenge to Trump’s authority to remake the government without congressional approval,” the case alleges that Trump’s directives—carried out through DOGE, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management—violate both constitutional separation of powers and administrative law.
During an emergency hearing just hours before the ruling, coalition attorney Danielle Leonard argued that the administration’s real goal was to weaken government operations. “The Trump administration’s vision was to fundamentally degrade the services that Congress funds agencies to carry out, raising a profound separation of powers conflict,” she told the court. Leonard added that the administration had failed to identify any legal authority permitting such drastic changes and had offered “competing and contradictory explanations of why Mr. Trump can authorize the massive restructuring without Congress.” She concluded, “It’s an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail.”
Judge Illston rejected the Trump administration’s request for a stay of execution on the temporary restraining order, stating, “The court will not consider defendants’ request for a stay of execution of the temporary restraining order, as doing so would render the exercise pointless.” She also emphasized the urgency of further proceedings, giving the plaintiffs until Wednesday to file for a preliminary injunction and the federal defendants until the following Monday to respond, with a page limit of 25 for both filings. A hearing on the longer-lasting injunction is scheduled for May 22.
In her ruling, Illston underscored the potential for “irreparable harm” if the administration’s actions were allowed to continue unchecked. “The court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families, and communities,” she wrote.
The judge cited extensive documentation provided by the plaintiffs—over 1,000 pages of evidence and 62 sworn declarations—including examples of agencies already decimated by layoffs. At the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Pittsburgh office, 221 out of 222 employees were reportedly terminated. Similar examples were found at Head Start offices, the Farm Service Agency, and the Social Security Administration.
This is not the first legal challenge to DOGE. Dozens of lawsuits have emerged in recent months alleging that Musk’s leadership of the department has led to violations of privacy laws and executive overreach. While some challenges have met mixed results, Judge Illston’s ruling is the most sweeping legal rebuke to date.
The implications of this case could be significant. While the restraining order temporarily halts the administration’s restructuring, Trump may still seek to push similar changes through Congress, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in both chambers. If the court ultimately rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would represent a landmark affirmation of constitutional checks and balances in the face of unilateral executive action.
For now, the ruling preserves the status quo and temporarily protects tens of thousands of federal workers from mass termination. As the case moves forward, both the court and the public will continue to scrutinize a restructuring effort that critics say risks turning democratic governance into corporate experimentation.
COMMENTS