The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday to lift a temporary injunction on the mass layoffs of federal employees, the administration’s latest effort to thwart district courts from blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Bill Clinton appointee, for the Northern District of California, ruled May 9 in a 42-page order that the administration’s effort to reduce the federal workforce was illegal without congressional authorization. The plaintiffs in the case included the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO.
“The district court lacked jurisdiction over this dispute related to federal personnel actions, and respondents lacked a cause of action to challenge White House direction and guidance about plans for future agency RIFs [reduction in forces],” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the high court.
Sauer argued that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 established by Congress and signed by President Jimmy Carter “preclude district court jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.”
“The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute established a Federal Labor Relations Authority to resolve issues related to collective bargaining between federal employee unions and their employers, including ‘issues relating to the granting of national consultation rights,’ ‘issues relating to determining compelling need for agency rules or regulations,’ ‘issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith,’ and ‘complaints of unfair labor practices,’ ” Sauer wrote. “In passing the statute, Congress specified that its provisions ‘should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government.’ “
Sauer added that the Civil Service Reform Act “provides a mechanism for employees who have suffered an adverse action to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board” and that it “excluded reductions in force” from the definition of “adverse action” appealable to the board. But regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management state that employees who have been furloughed, separated or demoted by a reduction in force can appeal to the board.
“Judicial review of final orders of both the Authority and the Board is available at circuit courts,” Sauer wrote.
Sauer noted the Supreme Court intervened last month in a similar case by blocking a preliminary injunction issued by another Clinton-appointed judge in the Northern District of California, William Aslup.
“It should take the same course here, where the order sweeps far more broadly — to cover most of the federal government — and restrains the Executive from even planning reductions in force pursuant to presidential direction,” he wrote. “As this Court has recognized, federal courts ‘do not possess a roving commission’ to ‘exercise general legal oversight of the Executive Branch,’ including its personnel practices.”
The Supreme Court has issued seven emergency orders this year in cases related to the Trump administration, with nine emergency applications pending, according to Ballotpedia. The administration filed 15 of the emergency applications, and one was filed by another party.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
