AFGE v. Trump

Last updated

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump
US DC NorCal.svg
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
Court membership
Judge sitting Susan Illston

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. is a lawsuit brought against U.S. president Donald Trump, United States federal executive departments, and Trump's second cabinet. Labor unions, non-profit organizations, and local governments sought to prevent the Trump administration from instituting mass layoffs and closing programs.

Contents

Background

On February 11, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order planning "large scale" reductions in the workforce of the United States federal government and forcing federal agencies—with the exception of those involved in law and immigration enforcement—to receive approval from a Department of Government Efficiency official to hire candidates. [1]

Lawsuit

On April 28, a coalition of labor unions, non-profit organizations, and local governments sued Trump, United States federal executive departments, and Trump's second cabinet in the District Court for the Northern District of California. [2] The plaintiffs included the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Alliance for Retired Americans and the Center for Taxpayer Rights, the cities of Baltimore, Chicago, and San Francisco, and the counties of Harris and King. [3] The New York Times described the case as "poised to have the broadest effect yet". [4]

Case

The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of violating the separation of powers under the United States Constitution. [5] If the Court rules that the president may institute reductions in force, the plaintiffs must go through the Merit Systems Protection Board. [6] On May 9, Judge Susan Illston granted a two-week [7] restraining order hours after an emergency hearing, temporarily blocking the Trump administration's efforts to lay off employees and close programs. [4] Lawyers for the federal government argued that a temporary restraining order was too broad [6] and that the plaintiffs lacked timeliness. [7] Illston disagreed with the federal government in her order, finding that the board had an insufficient number of members to issue decisions and that the federal government had not disclosed its plans to Congress or the plaintiffs. [8]

On May 30, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's emergency request to stay the preliminary injunction. [9] The Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction on July 8. [10]

References

Works cited