DOJ Asks Court to Limit Order Halting RFK Jr.’s Workforce Cuts

The US government is urging a federal court to revise an order that halts the health department from carrying out mass firings and a reorganization after finding it inconsistent with a recent US Supreme Court decision.

The preliminary injunction granted earlier this month to 19 states challenging the workforce cuts is “overbroad” under the high court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, the Justice Department said in a notice filed July 11 to the US District Court for District of Rhode Island.

The request to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction comes after the district court asked the government and states to file notices on how Trump v. CASA affects the order to temporarily block the workforce cuts. The high court in that case curtailed the ability of federal courts to issue universal or national injunctions, ruling that district courts lack the power to enjoin executive branch actions nationwide.

“Although only nineteen states and the District of Columbia are plaintiffs, the Court’s order appears to contain no limitation based on whether programs subject to the injunction impact a plaintiff state,” the government said in the notice. “The injunction thus grants more than the relief necessary to provide complete relief to the parties.”

US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in April announced sweeping cuts and restructuring of the offices and agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, with a reduction in force of about 10,000 employees.

The preliminary injunction applied to terminated employees in four different divisions of the HHS: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Center for Tobacco Products within the Food and Drug Administration; the Office of Head Start within the Administration for Children and Families and employees of regional offices who work on Head Start matters; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

But the DOJ said the federal court’s order could be read to apply more broadly and sweep in all of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

“To ensure continued compliance with the broader interpretation, Defendants provided compliance guidance that interpreted the order to apply to all of CDC and ASPE,” the government said.

“But requiring the drastic measure of continuing to freeze RIFs and restructuring efforts as to the entirety of those two agencies, when Plaintiffs did not provide reasoning and argument regarding those agencies that would even arguably support such a broad order, imposes a severe and unwarranted burden on Defendants.”

The states, however, argued in their notice the CASA decision doesn’t affect the scope of the court’s preliminary injunction order.

“Even if CASA’s reasoning were to apply with full force here, it would not warrant limiting the Court’s preliminary injunction order,” the states said. The government “provided no evidence of any plausible ‘narrower’ remedy” that assured the states relief, the states said.

The case is New York v. Kennedy, D.R.I., No. 25-cv-196, notice 7/11/25.