Judge Extends Temporary Freeze on Trump’s Job Corps Wind Down

A New York-based federal judge extended until next Wednesday his order temporarily blocking the US Department of Labor from shutting down its Job Corps training program for low-income young adults.

Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. on Tuesday seemed skeptical of Trump administration arguments that shutting down operations at nearly 100 Job Corps centers nationwide is different from ending the program entirely—something that only Congress can approve.

Students and staff at Job Corps centers nationwide are facing whiplash as the program starts and stops due to Trump’s policy and the ensuing legal challenge. Some participants have even chosen to leave Job Corps entirely.

It’s “interesting” that the Department of Labor’s decision comes at the same that the administration is pushing a budget that would eliminate Job Corps, Carter of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York said at a preliminary injunction hearing.

“How should I consider this coincidence?” he asked attorneys for both sides.

The federal budget request is “just another indication of what the Department of Labor is doing here,” said Hecker Fink LLP’s Max Feldman, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs challenging the agency’s decision.

Justice Department attorney Jean-David Barnea, however, said it’s not clear the two actions are related. “They have a relationship” but it shouldn’t influence the court’s view, he said.

The DOL initially announced it was directing 99 Job Corps centers throughout the US to shut down operations on May 29. Days later, the National Job Corps Association, several Job Corps contractors, the Transportation Communications Union/IAM, and one Job Corps student, filed a lawsuit against the action and Carter, an Obama appointee, soon put the shutdown on pause.

A preliminary injunction would potentially extend the emergency relief Carter signed off on June 4, which has for now preserved the training program that serves roughly 30,000 people aged 16-24 nationwide.

Still Operational?

Barnea noted that 24 centers across 15 states remain unaffected by the contract termination orders, but Carter doubted it can still be considered a national program with so few centers in operation. Neither side could answer in the moment which states still have operational centers.

The dispute seems to be centered on a broader policy issue of closing down the program, Carter said, hinting he disagrees with the Justice Department’s argument that the issue is contractual and thus must be adjudicated by the US Court of Federal Claims.

Carter also expressed concern about the Job Corps participants who will be affected by the center closures. Job Corps, which started in 1964, provides job training, housing, food, and stipends to low-income people across the country. In exchange, participants receive a high school diploma or equivalent training certifications in trades such as nursing, mechanics, and welding.

At least one named plaintiff was homeless before joining the program, but the government argued individual program participants don’t have standing to sue because they’re not parties to the center contracts. Barnea said that the named plaintiff and other participants would be sent back to their previous residence of record when the centers cease operations. “I know some are homeless, but even they had a residence of record” when they applied, he said.

“It seems like more than a minor upheaval,” Carter said. “If she is being removed from her residence and sent back to a homeless shelter, why is that not an injury that establishes standing?”

The groups in their brief argued the closure of the program goes beyond the DOL’s authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and separation of powers. Specifically, the DOL’s efforts to end Job Corps run afoul of the Impoundment Control Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act, the plaintiffs say.

In response to the lawsuit, the DOL has argued that the district court isn’t the proper venue to hear the case, and that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over federal contract disputes. The agency said it was shuttering the program due to high costs, poor outcomes for students, and safety issues at Job Corps centers.

Amy Jeffress of Hecker Fink LLP also represents the National Job Corps Association. Benjamin White of Bloch & White LLP represents Job Corps student Jocelyn Rivera.

Adams and Associates Inc.'s general counsel Tiffinay Barker Pagni represents the contractor in the case. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers’ general counsel Carla M. Siegel represents the transportation union.

The case is Nat’l Job Corps Ass’n v. DOL, S.D.N.Y., No. 25-04641, preliminary injunction hearing 6/17/25.