Judge Blocks Trump’s Proposed Cuts, Sparking Constitutional Conflict

A federal judge has stepped in to halt the Trump administration’s plans for major layoffs. This move, made during the ongoing government shutdown, has been described by a federal employee as “unprecedented” and indicative of “hasty, arbitrary and capricious decision-making.”

Judge Susan Illston, appointed by Clinton and stationed in the Northern District of California, issued a temporary restraining order. This order prohibits any notifications regarding troop reductions (RIF) from being executed, effective after October 10. Consequently, government agencies must not enforce or even anticipate this date. This injunction affects over 20 departments, including Treasury, Health and Human Services, Education, and Commerce.

Furthermore, Illston has called for the government to submit a complete report on all layoffs by Friday. She instructed the union to post only a $10 bail and denied the Justice Department’s request for an injunction.

Judicial Action Under Labor Law

Illston’s ruling is grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). She sees the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) expiration memorandum, which encouraged agencies to restructure non-essential programs, as a “final agency action” that can be reviewed by the courts.

This is notable because the APA typically governs agency rulemaking but does not usually apply to how businesses manage their employees. By characterizing internal memos as rulemakings, Illston has, in a sense, blurred the boundaries between regulation and governance, creating a litigious environment for the president’s staffing decisions.

In her ruling, she expressed that “RIF during a government shutdown is not a ‘normal’ RIF in any sense.” She asserted that the OMB memorandum appears to override congressional mandates and exemplifies poorly considered decision-making, citing instances where human resources were directed to issue RIF notices to themselves.

Illston also criticized the Department of Justice for not defending the legality of the policy during oral arguments, pointing out that the defendants seemed “not ready” to address the case’s merits. However, this reluctance may highlight weaknesses in her own argument. Courts can’t just assume jurisdiction when the government is unwilling to discuss policy during a shutdown.

Her reliance on the APA might face challenges on appeal, as the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that internal management decisions generally aren’t subject to APA oversight. If Illston’s interpretation were upheld, it could open up the possibility for nearly all executive reorganizations to face judicial scrutiny, an outcome the Supreme Court is unlikely to support, given its emphasis on respecting the separation of powers.

Congressional Budget Constraints Leading to Layoffs

But the main issue here isn’t just about labor law or the APA; it’s about the Constitution.

If Congress refuses to fund the government, does the executive branch have the authority to keep employees on staff? Is that a breach of the Appropriations Clauses? Or must the Constitution require layoffs for those employees that Congress chooses not to fund?

This question has lingered through numerous shutdowns over the years.

Federal employees have previously filed lawsuits claiming they were compelled to work without pay during the 2018-2019 shutdown, arguing this violated the 13th Amendment and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In one case, Judge Richard Leon ruled that certain employees must be compensated without delay, even during a shutdown, but this decision was quickly stayed. After the shutdown ended and employees received back pay, the matter became moot. The Court of Appeals didn’t evaluate the core issue.

This cycle seems to repeat with every shutdown: lawsuits arise, courts offer preliminary rulings or sidestep procedural issues, Congress reopens the government, and constitutional questions vanish. There’s a persistent tension between laws that prohibit spending without allocations and the practice of keeping workers employed without proper funding.

The federal government shutdown system has long relied on a legal fiction, asserting it can keep “essential” employees working without pay, arguing it’s not technically spending money. Yet, we know that these workers will eventually be compensated. This, naturally, raises questions about congressional control of spending.

Even more perplexing is when the Constitution’s Articles 1, 8, and 9 are considered together. Congress holds exclusive power to manage the nation’s credit and allocate funds. If obligations are undertaken without appropriation, that essentially means the executive branch borrowed without congressional approval, which is unconstitutional.

No appropriations equal no spending. And thus, no increase in the number of paid workers.

Consider this: if Congress decides to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), could the administration continue operations under the assumption that Congress might restore funding in the future? Certainly not. The executive branch must operate within the budget provided by Congress—not what the administration hopes it will be.

Currently, Congress has opted not to fund the federal government, with lawmakers from both parties being quite clear on this front. This isn’t a coincidence or a temporary oversight; it’s a deliberate conflict, and Congress has chosen to halt funding.

Illston’s Paradox

Illston’s temporary restraining order, though seen as a small win for workers, effectively highlights a deeper constitutional inconsistency. She stated that government employees cannot be mandated to work during the dismissal process. This would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, the same statute that restricts government operations without funding. In essence, conducting layoffs during a government shutdown is forbidden.

This reasoning extends to any activities during a shutdown—not just layoffs. If executing a RIF is illegal due to lack of funding, how can the rest of the government legally operate under similar circumstances?

In this regard, Illston’s order could pave the way for a ruling that forces the judiciary to confront pivotal queries: What actions can the executive branch take if Congress hasn’t appropriated any funds?

It’s likely the administration will appeal, as the Supreme Court has shown hesitance to allow lower courts to intervene in administrative actions during shutdowns. However, regardless of whether Illston’s order is overturned, her reasoning illuminates the contradictory nature at the core of every fundraising debacle: constitutionally, the government cannot take on obligations without funding, yet it continuously performs “essential” functions.

Reality Check Amid Shutdown Drama

President Trump has openly expressed his intent to use the government shutdown as a means to downsize the federal bureaucracy. OMB Director Russell Vought stated plans to expand layoffs to over 10,000 employees, viewing the shutdown as “an opportunity for American taxpayers to advocate for necessary cuts.”

Vice President J.D. Vance commented, “The deeper the cuts, the longer the shutdown will last.” Illston’s injunction may stall this agenda but also exposes the fragility of the existing shutdown systems. Administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have relied on the idea that they can stretch the Constitution’s fiscal boundaries to keep operations running. By testing these limits, the Trump administration could force the courts to clarify the boundaries of executive power.

Sometimes, the Constitution asserts itself not through caution but via confrontation. Illston’s ruling presents a short-term setback for the administration but may ultimately call into question the practice of shutting down the government. If Congress fails to allocate funds, the basic constitutional requirement is straightforward: halt everything until funding is secured.