AFGE RIF Lawsuit Against Trump: Injunction, Stay, and Remand

The AFGE RIF lawsuit against Trump is American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03698, filed April 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. AFGE and a coalition of unions, cities, counties, and advocacy groups are challenging Executive Order 14210 and a follow-on OMB-OPM memorandum that directed federal agencies to plan large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations. Judge Susan Illston granted a sweeping preliminary injunction on May 22, 2025; the Supreme Court stayed it on July 8, 2025; and the case is now in a contested discovery phase before Judge Illston, with no trial date set.¹

What the Lawsuit Challenges

The suit targets two documents. The first is Executive Order 14210, signed February 11, 2025, which directed agencies to undertake a “critical transformation” of the federal government by eliminating or consolidating offices and launching large-scale RIFs, prioritizing functions not mandated by statute. The second is a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, issued February 26, 2025, instructing agency heads to submit RIF and reorganization plans developed in consultation with a DOGE team lead.²

The plaintiffs’ legal theory is that the President cannot fundamentally restructure agencies Congress created by statute without congressional authorization. The complaint alleges the executive order and memorandum are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, exceed statutory authority, and constitute ultra vires executive action.³

Who Sued and Who Was Sued

AFGE leads a large plaintiff coalition. It includes several AFGE locals, AFSCME, SEIU, the City of Chicago, the County of Santa Clara, the City and County of San Francisco, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and VoteVets Action Fund, among others.⁴⁵

On the other side sit President Trump; OMB and Director Russell Vought; OPM; the U.S. DOGE Service and Elon Musk (who initially led DOGE); and 22 federal departments and agencies including Agriculture, Commerce, the EPA, and the Social Security Administration.⁵

Judge Illston’s Preliminary Injunction

On May 22, 2025, Judge Illston granted a preliminary injunction covering all 22 defendant agencies and barring OMB, OPM, and DOGE from approving or implementing reorganization and RIF plans. She wrote that the administration’s actions “flout the legislative authority granted to Congress in the Constitution” and that “a President may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.”⁶

Her ruling drew on 68 sworn declarations and an in camera review of agency reorganization plans. The plans revealed proposed cuts of up to 93% of staff at some agencies, and RIFs were already underway across at least 17 agencies in roughly 40 separate actions.³ The order also directed agencies to rescind RIFs already carried out and to reverse administrative-leave placements, though the judge paused that requirement during the government’s appeal.⁶

The Supreme Court Stay

The Ninth Circuit declined to stay Judge Illston’s injunction. The Supreme Court did. On July 8, 2025, the Court granted an emergency stay, holding that the government was “likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.” The Court expressly declined to weigh in on the legality of any specific agency RIF or reorganization plan.³

Justice Jackson dissented. She wrote that the President was attempting to “fundamentally reorganize the structure of the Government” without congressional authorization and that the stay improperly bypassed lower-court fact-finding. Justice Sotomayor concurred in the result but wrote separately.³

The practical effect: the executive order and memorandum can be implemented while the case continues. Agencies have been proceeding.

The Ninth Circuit Remand

On September 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit vacated Judge Illston’s preliminary injunction and sent the case back to her for reconsideration. The panel gave three reasons. The Supreme Court’s stay had already paused the injunction. A new Supreme Court decision, Trump v. Casa, limited the power of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. And circumstances had changed since the original order.⁷

The Fight Over Agency RIF Plans

Back before Judge Illston, the case shifted to discovery. The core dispute has been the government’s internal Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans (ARRPs). Judge Illston ordered production; the administration refused, invoking deliberative process privilege; the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus to block the production order.⁸

The appellate panel reasoned that any deliberative process privilege was overcome because the government had successfully opposed the creation of a conventional administrative record, leaving no other way for the court to evaluate the plans’ legality. The full Ninth Circuit declined en banc review; five judges dissented, arguing the decision “severely weakened the deliberative process privilege.”⁸

Judge Illston issued a protective order allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to review the plans but barring them from sharing the contents with clients or the public. She also observed that because the plans had been submitted to and approved by OMB and OPM, it was questionable whether they remained “predecisional” at all.⁹

FEMA Firings and the Order To Depose Secretary Noem

In February 2026, AFGE filed for a temporary restraining order to halt DHS and FEMA directives that stripped personnel authority and initiated non-renewal of hundreds of Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery (CORE) employees. Judge Illston converted the motion into a request for a preliminary injunction and ordered full briefing.¹

In March 2026, a Justice Department lawyer told the court that DHS played no role in the firings. That statement contradicted a sworn declaration from the FEMA Administrator that DHS had ordered the non-renewal of 192 CORE employees. Judge Illston ordered expedited discovery and authorized depositions of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, FEMA Administrator Karen Evans, and human resources officials from both agencies.¹⁰

The Separate Shutdown RIF Case

A related suit, often confused with the main case, is AFGE v. OMB, No. 3:25-cv-08302, also before Judge Illston. When the federal government shut down on October 1, 2025, in what became the longest shutdown in U.S. history at 43 days, OMB had issued a “Lapse Memorandum” on September 24 directing agencies to use the shutdown to conduct RIFs in programs “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”¹¹¹²

Roughly 4,100 federal workers received RIF notices. OMB Director Russell Vought publicly suggested the number would exceed 10,000. On October 15, 2025, Judge Illston granted a temporary restraining order, calling the OMB instruction “unprecedented in our country’s history.” A preliminary injunction followed on October 28, covering all Cabinet departments and 24 independent agencies. The court found the agencies’ actions were likely “hasty, arbitrary and capricious” and rested on “illegal grounds.”¹²

Congress then intervened. A continuing resolution passed November 12, 2025, included Section 120, voiding all shutdown-related RIFs and prohibiting any new RIFs through January 30, 2026.¹³ Some agencies pressed ahead anyway. On December 3, 2025, AFGE and the American Foreign Service Association filed an emergency TRO to stop the State Department from terminating over 250 Foreign Service and civil service employees whose notices predated the shutdown; Judge Illston granted the TRO the next day.¹⁴

On December 17, 2025, she issued a second preliminary injunction ordering the State Department, the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Education to rescind RIF notices for roughly 680 employees terminated between October 1 and November 12, finding the agencies had violated the continuing resolution.¹⁵¹³¹⁶

Why AFGE Says the RIFs Were Unlawful

Federal RIF rules are codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3504 and implemented through 5 C.F.R. Part 351. Agencies must define “competitive areas” (the organizational and geographic boundaries within which employees compete for retention) and group similar positions into “competitive levels.” They rank employees on retention registers using four factors in order: tenure of employment, veterans’ preference, length of service, and performance ratings.¹⁷¹⁸

Employees are separated in inverse order of retention standing. Higher-ranked employees have “bumping” and “retreating” rights to displace lower-ranked employees in other positions. Agencies must give at least 60 days’ written notice before separation, with a minimum of 30 days in extraordinary circumstances approved by OPM.¹⁸

AFGE’s core allegation is that the administration’s mass layoff directives bypassed these requirements, treating what amounted to wholesale government reorganization as routine personnel management. In the shutdown RIF case, plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Antideficiency Act and the Appropriations Clause, arguing the government could not spend money administering RIFs during a funding lapse.¹⁹

Where the Case Stands

The main RIF case remains in discovery before Judge Illston in San Francisco. No trial date has been set. The Supreme Court’s stay of the original preliminary injunction is still in effect, so the executive order and OMB-OPM memorandum can be implemented while litigation continues. Judge Illston has retained her authority to review specific agency plans and has continued ordering the government to produce internal documents.¹ The FEMA piece is proceeding on an expedited discovery track that includes authorized depositions of Secretary Noem and FEMA Administrator Evans.¹⁰ The parallel shutdown RIF case awaits a May 2026 motion-to-dismiss hearing after the government’s appeal was dismissed as moot.¹⁶

1
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump
2
WhiteHouse.gov. Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency Workforce Optimization Initiative
3
U.S. Supreme Court. Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, No. 24A1174
4
CourtListener. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump
5
NRDC. American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump
6
FedScoop. District Judge Further Enjoins Trump’s Reductions in Force at Federal Agencies
7
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. AFGE v. Trump, No. 25-3293
8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. AFGE v. Trump, No. 25-4476
9
NRDC. AFGE v. Trump, Order on Motion for Protective Order and Production of Agency RIF Plans
10
Public Rights Project. AFGE v. Trump
11
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Congress Could End Government Shutdown Drama Once and For All
12
4 Clean Air. AFGE v. OMB, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
13
AFGE. Summary of AFGE Lawsuits Against Trump
14
AFGE. AFGE, AFSA Block Illegal State Department Firings Pending Hearing
15
Federal News Network. Federal Judge Orders Reversal of Hundreds of Layoffs Finalized During Shutdown
16
Workers’ Legal Defense. Federal Worker Litigation Tracker
17
OPM. Reductions in Force (RIF)
18
Congressional Research Service. Federal Reductions in Force
19
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget