A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from firing thousands of federal employees during the ongoing government shutdown, ruling that the mass layoffs are likely illegal and politically motivated.

The government shutdown began on October 1, 2025, and has now entered its third week, with no resolution in sight. This marks the third government shutdown during a Trump presidency and represents an unprecedented departure from historical shutdown protocols, which have traditionally involved furloughing employees with guaranteed back pay rather than permanent terminations.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California granted the emergency order on October 15, 2025, following a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The decision came after federal agencies began issuing reduction-in-force (RIF) notices to approximately 4,100 federal workers on October 10, marking what the judge described as an unprecedented action in the nation’s history.

Judge Illston, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, stated that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving the administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act by being arbitrary, capricious, and exceeding federal authority. The temporary restraining order prohibits the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and more than 30 federal agencies from issuing new RIF notices or implementing existing ones in any office where the unions represent employees.​​

“What is becoming clear is that reductions in force during a government shutdown are not ‘ordinary’ RIFs in any sense of the word,” Judge Illston wrote in her October 15 order. She criticized the administration’s approach as “ready, fire, aim,” emphasizing that “it has a human cost” that “cannot be tolerated.”

The judge noted that the administration appeared to be exploiting the government funding lapse to disregard existing laws and implement its workforce reduction agenda. She cited evidence suggesting the layoffs were politically motivated, referencing President Trump’s public statements that the cuts would be “Democrat oriented, because we figure, you know, they started this thing, so they should be Democrat-oriented.”

The court ruling detailed numerous problems with how the layoffs were conducted during the shutdown. Many furloughed employees could not access their government email accounts to learn they were being laid off, while human resources staff who typically assist with terminations were themselves furloughed. In one striking example, HR staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were brought back over the weekend to process RIF notices, then told to issue layoff notices to themselves.​​

The Department of Health and Human Services issued hundreds of RIF notices in error due to “data discrepancies and processing errors,” initially notifying approximately 1,760 employees when only 982 were intended to receive termination notices. Employees with serious health conditions or in late-stage pregnancy worried about losing health insurance but had no one available to answer their questions during the shutdown.

According to government declarations filed in court, the layoffs affected multiple federal departments: Treasury (1,377 employees), Health and Human Services (982), Education (466), Housing and Urban Development (442), Commerce (approximately 600), Energy (179), Homeland Security (54), and the Environmental Protection Agency (28). OMB Director Russ Vought stated that more than 10,000 federal positions could ultimately be eliminated.

The unions argued that a September 24, 2025 memorandum from OMB and subsequent guidance from OPM represented illegal agency action. The OMB memo directed agencies to “use this opportunity” of the shutdown to consider RIF notices, particularly targeting areas “not consistent with the President’s priorities”. President Trump posted on social media that he was meeting with Vought to “determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut”.​​

Judge Illston found that the OMB memorandum essentially sought to overturn congressional mandates by declaring that federal programs whose funding lapsed “are no longer statutorily required to be carried out.”

Judge Illston ordered the government to file by October 17, 2025, a complete accounting of all RIFs that are enjoined by the temporary restraining order, including descriptions of affected agencies, numbers of employees, and specific programs targeted. Each defendant agency must also submit declarations verifying compliance with the order.​

The court scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for October 28, 2025, to determine whether the protections should be extended while the case proceeds to final judgment. Plaintiffs’ moving papers are due October 21, defendants’ responses are due October 24, and plaintiffs’ reply papers are due October 27.