Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Sweeping HHS Layoff and Reorganization Plan, Citing Lack of Legal Authority
A federal judge in California has issued a significant legal blow to the Trump administration’s effort to fundamentally restructure and shrink the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), halting its plans for mass layoffs and department consolidations. In a ruling that may have far-reaching implications for executive authority and the future of federal workforce policy, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted a preliminary injunction that indefinitely pauses the administration’s reorganization campaign.
The decision, handed down late Thursday from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, came in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of public employee unions, advocacy groups, and several local governments. The plaintiffs sued President Donald Trump, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and a host of other federal officials and agencies, arguing that the administration lacked the legal authority to implement such sweeping changes without congressional approval.
At the heart of the dispute is a controversial executive order signed by Trump on February 11. The order, described by the White House as a bold step toward reducing government bureaucracy and improving efficiency, called for the restructuring of numerous federal agencies. Specifically, HHS was directed to consolidate its 28 divisions into just 15 and eliminate as many as 10,000 federal positions, representing one of the largest proposed reductions in force (RIF) in the agency’s history.
The executive order was quickly followed by implementation memos from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), instructing federal agencies on how to execute the administration’s reorganization strategy. According to court documents, these instructions triggered an immediate ramp-up in planning for layoffs, office closures, and program consolidations—many of which, plaintiffs allege, began without the legally required review or consultation with Congress.
In her 51-page decision, Judge Illston forcefully rejected the administration’s legal basis for its actions. “Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that—by statute—they must carry out,” Illston wrote. “Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.”
The judge’s order not only blocks HHS from implementing further restructuring or layoffs under the executive order, but also mandates that any actions already taken under the order be rolled back. This includes rescinding issued RIF notices and reinstating employees who were placed on administrative leave as a result of the planned changes. However, recognizing that the government may appeal the decision, Judge Illston temporarily stayed the enforcement of these rollbacks during the appeals process.
This is not the first legal obstacle the administration has faced in its effort to reshape HHS and other departments. In April, a federal judge in Rhode Island issued a separate injunction halting HHS’s attempt to slash more than $11 billion in federal health grants. Taken together, these rulings highlight the mounting judicial skepticism toward unilateral executive efforts to dramatically alter the structure and function of federal agencies.
One of the most contentious aspects of the proposed HHS reorganization involves the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a public health agency established by Congress in 1970 to conduct research and make recommendations for the prevention of work-related injury and illness. According to internal documents cited in the case, HHS had planned to eliminate most of NIOSH’s workforce and fold its remaining responsibilities into other parts of the department—a move that plaintiffs argued would render the agency functionally inoperative.
Judge Illston seemed to agree with those concerns, writing that the scale of the proposed workforce reductions raised serious questions about HHS’s ability to fulfill its legally mandated responsibilities. “For example, it appears the Department of Health and Human Services is planning to practically wipe out the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an office established by Congress,” Illston noted in her ruling. “The court is not convinced that a directive to respect statutory mandates is a message the agencies have actually received.”
The plaintiffs in the case celebrated the ruling as a critical victory for the rule of law and the integrity of the federal civil service. In a joint statement, the coalition of public sector unions and local governments who brought the lawsuit said the court’s decision affirms that the president cannot unilaterally dismantle agencies and programs created by Congress.
“This ruling sends a clear message: the executive branch is not a monarchy,” said Michael Carrington, president of the National Union of Federal Employees, one of the lead plaintiffs. “Congress—not the White House—determines how federal agencies are structured and staffed. We are grateful that the court has stepped in to protect not only our members’ jobs, but the services that millions of Americans rely on.”
Legal experts say the ruling could have broader implications beyond HHS. If upheld on appeal, it may constrain future attempts by the executive branch to reorganize federal agencies without congressional authorization. It could also set a precedent requiring greater transparency and legislative consultation when presidents seek to downsize or reallocate agency functions.
“Judge Illston’s opinion is a strong assertion of congressional authority in the administration of the federal government,” said Harold Wright, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “While presidents have considerable leeway in managing executive agencies, they do not have carte blanche to override statutory mandates or engage in de facto repeals of congressionally established programs. This case could reshape the boundaries of executive power for years to come.”
In Washington, the ruling triggered sharp responses along partisan lines. Supporters of the Trump administration denounced the injunction as judicial overreach, accusing the court of obstructing efforts to streamline government and reduce waste. White House spokesperson Sandra Vaughn called the lawsuit “politically motivated” and vowed that the administration would appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“Our executive order is about making government work better for the American people, not worse,” Vaughn said. “We will continue fighting for common-sense reforms that put taxpayer dollars to better use.”
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers praised the court’s decision as a vital check on what they described as reckless and ideologically driven attempts to dismantle critical health infrastructure.
“From day one, this administration has tried to hollow out the federal government and kneecap agencies that protect public health and safety,” said Rep. Janice Hollingsworth (D-CA), a senior member of the House Oversight Committee. “Thanks to this ruling, at least for now, they won’t be able to do it without answering to the American people and their elected representatives.”
As the legal battle continues, the future of the HHS reorganization remains uncertain. The court’s injunction has effectively frozen the Trump administration’s plans for now, preserving the agency’s existing structure and workforce—at least until a higher court weighs in.
What’s clear, however, is that the clash between executive ambition and legislative authority is far from over. And as this case moves forward, it could help define the scope of presidential power over the federal workforce for administrations to come.
