Federal judge orders reversal of hundreds of layoffs finalized during shutdown

A federal judge in San Francisco is reversing the terminations of hundreds of federal employees who were let go during the recent government shutdown.

Judge Orders Reversal of Federal Layoffs

A preliminary injunction, signed Wednesday by Judge Susan Illston, orders the departments of Education and State, as well as the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration, to rescind reduction in force (RIF) notices for employees terminated between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12 — the start and end dates of the shutdown.

Illston is giving agencies until Dec. 23 to carry out the terms of her preliminary injunction, “absent a contrary ruling from a higher court.” She wrote that “Defendants must do what the continuing resolution says. They may not take any further steps to implement or carry out a RIF through January 30, 2026, regardless of when the RIF notice first issued.”

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, leading a lawsuit with other unions, argued that agencies finalizing these RIFs during the government shutdown violated a stopgap spending bill passed by Congress, which prohibited layoffs through Jan. 30, 2026.

The court issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month blocking layoffs of nearly 250 Foreign Service officers at the State Department. Those layoffs were originally scheduled for Nov. 10, but were pushed back to Dec. 5, and remain on hold.

The Trump administration has interpreted the stopgap spending bill narrowly, reinstating only federal employees who received RIF notices between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12.

The continuing resolution passed on Nov. 12 states that between Nov. 12, 2025 and Jan. 30, 2026, “no federal funds may be used to initiate, carry out, implement, or otherwise notice a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees within any department.” It also states that “any reduction in force proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken by an executive agency between October 1, 2025, and the date of enactment, shall have no force or effect.”

During a hearing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Illston said she would grant the preliminary injunction requested by the unions, because the “chaotic nature of these RIFs has been continuing.” She added that the continuing resolution prohibited spending federal funds on RIFs through Jan. 30, but that “that is not what is happening in some of these agencies.”

The judge’s order will impact about 680 federal employees, including nearly 250 Foreign Service officers at the State Department, 200 employees at GSA, 150 at the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and nearly 80 at SBA.

Illston said she would consider the Justice Department’s request to delay the injunction’s effect for a few days, giving the Trump administration time to consider appealing the ruling. She noted this would minimize “whiplash” for employees who have been reinstated and then faced potential layoffs again in other cases.

Brad Rosenberg, a DOJ attorney representing the Trump administration, argued rescinding layoffs would be “logistically a big lift” for agencies, especially if the courts later allow the RIFs to proceed. He suggested employees should bring individual cases before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing the plaintiff unions, said the congressional mandate was “clear” and that agencies should “nullify those RIFs.” She stated that Congress went “further than” simply halting layoffs, and that recently separated federal employees are facing “real and ongoing harm,” including eviction notices and unpaid bills.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley called Illston’s ruling “another victory for federal employees and for the rule of law.” John Dinkelman, president of the American Foreign Service Association, said Congress was clear that “reductions in force were prohibited” and that the administration’s efforts to proceed with RIFs were “unlawful.”