Judge Temporarily Halts Mass Worker Firings During Shutdown

Payroll | October 15, 2025

Judge Temporarily Halts Mass Worker Firings During Shutdown

A judge on Oct. 15 halted the Trump administration’s mass firing of federal employees during the government shutdown, siding with the workers’ unions who filed a legal challenge against the RIFs announced by the Office of Management and Budget last week.

By Ben Mause
Baltimore Sun
(TNS)

WASHINGTON — A judge halted the Trump administration’s mass firing of federal employees during the government shutdown, siding with the workers’ unions who filed a legal challenge against the reductions in force announced by the Office of Management and Budget on Friday.

“As of right now, the [temporary restraining order] is in effect,” U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said at the end of the hearing. She added that OMB is precluded from further action to implement Reduction In Force (RIF) notices already issued and from terminating additional workers.

The judge also ordered that the defendants provide transparent information on Friday’s RIFs within two business days. The next hearing in the ongoing case is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 28.

Illston said in her opening remarks that she was inclined to grant the emergency motion to halt the firings, saying that OMB used the shutdown to assume “all bets were off,” and that they could use the government shutdown to structure the government how they like, a position and authority that goes beyond current law.

Recommended Articles

The judge described the RIFs as firings that happened because, “in the view of the employer, they can” fire whoever they want.

Illston also remarked on the lack of communication between government agencies and the employees they RIFed, many of whom did not receive an official notice of their termination but heard from coworkers.

“It’s very much ready, fire, aim,” Illston, a Clinton appointee, said. “It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

“By all appearances, they are politically motivated,” Illston added.

Quotes and social media posts by President Donald Trump were read as evidence against the government, including a post depicting OMB Director Russell Vought as the Grim Reaper.

“The activities being undertaken here are contrary to the laws,” Illston said.

The challenge, which sought a temporary restraining order on the RIFs, was filed on Friday after the firings began. The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees led the challenge against OMB, arguing that a shutdown doesn’t grant OMB extraordinary authority to conduct mass firings.

Administration’s lawyer unprepared

After Illston’s initial remarks, she called for a lawyer defending OMB to address the merits of the case. But Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Hedges, who was representing the agency, wasn’t ready to.

After the judge asked multiple times for Hedges to address whether the firings were legal, the lawyer admitted that she had not prepared a case to address that question.

Hedges instead argued that lawyers for the workers’ unions had not shown that the firings would cause irreparable harm on procedural grounds, saying that a temporary restraining order was unneeded.

Illston at one point remarked that the attorney arguing on behalf of OMB seemed to have drawn “the short straw.”

As Hedges ended her argument, Illston sought to clarify that the attorney was not making any statement on the government’s position on whether the firings were legal or not. The OMB attorney confirmed that she wasn’t taking a position on the legality of the firings.

Previous rulings

Illston previously presided over a challenge to mass firings from the administration. She halted RIFs indefinitely in May as the administration and its Department of Government Efficiency reshaped the federal government, extensively restructuring agencies and ordering mass firings.

Because the administration had not received congressional approval, Illston said the executive branch had overstepped its authority.

“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,” Illston wrote in her decision.

Illustration credit: Anamarija Mrkic/iStock

_______

©2025 Baltimore Sun. Visit baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency LLC.

Thanks for reading CPA Practice Advisor!

Subscribe for free to get personalized daily content, newsletters, continuing education, podcasts, whitepapers and more…

Leave a Reply