A federal judge in San Francisco has halted the Trump administration’s contentious plan to proceed with layoffs during the current government shutdown. This decision came on Wednesday, preventing the administration from implementing reductions in force (RIFs) intended to cut federal jobs.

The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, criticized the proposed mass layoffs as politically motivated and beyond the scope of executive power. These RIFs were initially proposed just before the shutdown commenced late last month.

Judge Illston expressed strong disapproval of the administration’s approach, accusing it of exploiting the government shutdown to bypass legal norms. According to a report by Politico, she remarked that the administration seemed to believe that the legal constraints no longer applied and that it could impose its preferred policies unilaterally.

In her findings, detailed by Bloomberg Law, Judge Illston declared the proposed layoffs both “illegal and in excess of authority.”

The judge found the firings to be “illegal and in excess of authority,” according to a courtroom report by Bloomberg Law.

The underlying Sept. 30 litigation was filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents thousands of federal workers assigned to various federal agencies.

In their 31-page complaint, the plaintiffs asked for injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing agency behavior. On Oct. 4, the labor union plaintiffs filed a 29-page motion for a temporary restraining order.

“In contravention of binding authority, even before the shutdown began, the Administration announced its plan to engage in mass terminations of federal employees — not temporary furloughs, but permanent reductions-in-force — during the shutdown,” the second filing reads. “And now, it has become clear that those threats have become action and will soon be carried out.”

Motions practice has been quick due to the presumed speed with which such layoffs might be effectuated – a rapidity singled out by the plaintiffs in their restraining order request. Indeed, in their own haste, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys filed an error-filled motion in opposition, prompting the subsequent filing of an errata notice – a formal document admitting to, and correcting, certain mistakes.

Over the weekend, Illston set the date for the hearing, which ended with the court blocking the government from “taking any action” that might result in RIFs being issued to workers represented by the AFGE.

The lawsuit noted the plans to fire government workers were previewed in a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which advised all administrative agency heads to “use this opportunity” to reduce staff.

During the hearing, the judge listed public comments made by President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and OMB Director Russ Vought. Those comments, the court noted, evidenced a desire to attack and dismantle programs supported by the Democratic Party.

“It’s really ready, fire, aim on most of these programs,” Illston opined on Wednesday. “It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

The government, in its opposition motion and during the hearing, argued the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue because the harms they describe are too speculative – insisting the OMB memo is not actually binding on any federal agency.

“Many of them may well decide not to do RIFs at all,” DOJ attorney Elizabeth Hedges argued – to little effect.

The judge rejected that line of thought, upbraiding the DOJ for attempting to make its case only on jurisdictional issues.

“You’re not making any statement concerning the government’s position on the merits…whether the RIFs are legal?” Illston asked.

To which Hedges replied: “Not today, your honor.”

“You’re not going to get to the merits with me today because the merits are just so troublesome,” Illston intoned.