Political Tinge to Trump Shutdown Job Cuts Strengthens New Suit

A lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s shutdown-induced layoffs is shaping up to be a seminal check on the president’s authority to fire federal workers—especially those he considers political enemies.

A federal judge in California froze Trump’s latest string of firings Wednesday, saying they were likely illegal. The decision potentially kicks off a long legal battle ahead that could ultimately impede the administration’s efforts to downsize the federal workforce, or make way for a monumental expansion of executive authority.

Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order Wednesday, saying the White House is unlikely to make a compelling argument that firing the workers, especially those in “Democrat-oriented” jobs as Trump has said, is lawful.

“If what plaintiffs allege is true, then the agencies’ actions in laying off thousands of public employees during a government shutdown—and in targeting for RIFs those programs that are perceived as favored by a particular political party—is the epitome of hasty, arbitrary and capricious decision making,” Illston wrote.

Legal experts told Bloomberg Law that while Trump has won previous lawsuits over terminating federal workers, this case is notably different because it is the first time a president has laid off workers permanently during a shutdown.

Illston noted: “What is becoming clear is that reductions in force (‘RIFs’) during a government shutdown are not ‘ordinary’ RIFs in any sense of the word.”

The disorganization surrounding the latest cuts is also coming into play. Some workers didn’t know they were let go because they lost access to their government email accounts, and HR wasn’t working, Illston said. The US Department of Health and Human Services accidentally let go 778 workers due to an administrative error, while nearly 1,000 others were fired.

The administration cut more than 4,000 workers on Oct. 10 and White House officials have promised thousands more terminations notices to come. The government is expected to appeal Illston’s decision.

Department of Justice attorneys have argued that such challenges should not be decided by federal courts, but should instead be brought to the Merit Systems Protection Board, an agency created by Congress to hear federal employees’ complaints. They’ve also argued that the lawsuit is premature because employees only received notices and won’t be let go for 30 to 60 days, meaning the government could still change its plans.

The administration has been successful on appeal in previous cases. In August, the US Supreme Court allowed Trump’s earlier cuts to continue while the case moves forward.

Unclear Powers

No administration has attempted to permanently fire federal workers during a government shutdown, making the lawsuit novel.

Administration officials have argued Trump can cut programs created by Congress and fire employees during the shutdown because of the lapse in appropriations. The White House press secretary called the layoffs “a consequence of this government shutdown.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he expects Illston’s order to be overturned on appeal. Trump has the authority to cut positions once funding runs out, he said.

“If there is no funding, the position disappears,” Spatovsky said. “A judge does not have the authority to override Congress’s refusal to appropriate and to order the executive branch to retain staff for which there is no appropriation.”

“It’s a leap, right, because one may have nothing to do with the other,” said Ariel Solomon, a federal employment attorney representing workers. “There’s a novel argument that has to be raised because, to my knowledge, and this hasn’t been done before.”

Even if it were true that Trump has the authority to get rid of workers due to the shutdown, it’s unclear whether that would remain true once Congress passes a spending bill.

“It’s not that the government doesn’t have money, it’s that the money hasn’t been appropriated yet,” said Tom Spiggle, a Washington-based employment attorney. “Once the shutdown ends, everybody gets paid, everything goes back to normal.”

Illston’s order paused the layoffs, including those that haven’t been made public yet, pending a hearing next week. But the American Federation of Government Employees, which brought the lawsuit, said late Thursday that the Interior Department plans to begin mass layoffs Monday despite Illston’s directive.

Before the temporary restraining order was announced, White House budget director Russell Vought estimated that more than 10,000 employees would lose their jobs.

Their Own Words

Freewheeling statements given by top Trump officials could put the government’s legal defense in jeopardy.

In court, Illston read a social media post by Trump portraying Vought as the Grim Reaper, and a quote from the president himself saying the terminations would be “Democrat-oriented.”

Trump told reporters Tuesday he would target “egregious socialist, semi-communist” programs favored by Democrats, but not Republican ones, because “we think they work.”

Such statements could easily be used by opponents to undermine the administration’s attorneys, according to Spiggle.

“It’s a situation of the administration shooting itself in the foot,” Spiggle said.

A hearing on an injunction against the government—which could be a longer pause on the layoffs—has been set for Oct. 28.

The DOJ has been silent on its legal reasoning for the shutdown cuts. In the hearing Wednesday, DOJ attorneys only discussed jurisdictional issues and repeatedly declined Illston’s requests for a merit-based justification. The next hearing will likely lay out the substance of the government’s argument.

“It’s important to bear in mind that until they have the hearing, not all the points are fleshed out, so it’s a bit hard to make a prediction,” Solomon said. “But I will say that the standard of granting a temporary TRO is high, right? So the court was absolutely concerned.”

The case is AFGE v OMB, N.D. Cal., No. 3:25-cv-08302, 10/15/25.