Trump Urges Ninth Circuit to Allow Federal Layoffs During Appeal

The Trump administration is asking a federal appeals court to pause a temporary order blocking the administration from implementing mass layoffs and firings of federal workers.

The emergency request, filed Monday in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argues that the “sweeping” order issued last Friday should be stayed because “the injunction rests on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the separation of powers.”

Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order against the government on May 9, finding that the administration’s plans to conduct a “critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy” likely violated the Constitution because such a change would require approval from Congress.

The Trump administration immediately appealed and moved for an emergency stay of the order, which applied to federal employees at 20 different agencies.

“The harms to the Executive Branch are apparent from the court’s order, which halts nearly every executive department from taking steps to implement the President’s policy priorities. To correct these errors and prevent further irreparable harm, this Court should grant a stay,” the Trump administration wrote in the May 12 request.

Specifically, the government argues that federal employees can only address their claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board and that unions that brought the suit failed to identify an agency action being challenged under their Administrative Procedure Act claims.

The lawsuit was filed by coalition of labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, nonprofit organizations, and municipal governments in late April.

The Trump administration has requested that the Ninth Circuit rule on their motion by May 15, since the Friday order also directs the government to produce records on how each agency plans to implement the reductions in force.

The case is: AFGE v. Trump, 9th Cir., No. 25-3030, motion filed on 5/12/25.