A federal judge in California has summoned the Trump administration for an urgent court session scheduled for Friday afternoon. This comes amid fears that thousands of federal employees could face layoffs in the near future, potentially defying a standing temporary restraining order.

This hearing is part of a series of rapid legal maneuvers by both parties involved in this intensely contested case.

Earlier in the week, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, appointed by Bill Clinton, delivered a bench ruling that halted the government’s plans to implement reductions in force (RIFs), which would decrease the federal workforce. Subsequently, a detailed seven-page order was released, explaining the terms of the injunction and the judge’s reasoning for preventing the widespread layoffs.

“If the plaintiffs’ claims hold true, then the agencies’ decisions to lay off thousands of public workers during a government shutdown—particularly targeting programs perceived as favored by a specific political party—illustrate a classic case of rash, arbitrary, and capricious decision-making,” reads Illston’s order.

On Thursday, concerns that these layoffs might proceed despite the court’s ruling were brought to light in a motion filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, which advocates for numerous federal workers employed across various agencies.

The plaintiffs warn the Department of the Interior (DOI) could effectively ignore Illston’s temporary restraining order and move ahead with “widespread reduction-in-force notices” this coming Monday, Oct. 20. The motion cites “multiple credible sources” who claim the DOI plans to move forward with such firings regardless.

An accompanying declaration filed by one of the attorneys representing the labor union plaintiffs elaborates on the sourcing.

“Early on October 16, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Department of Interior was actively preparing a large-scale reduction in force (RIF) to terminate thousands of employees,” Danielle Leonard writes. “This immediately raised concerns regarding compliance with this Court’s order. The sources included a journalist who claimed to have inside sources at the Department working on this RIF.”

According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, those concerns were raised directly with the U.S. Department of Justice in a Thursday email.

But the AFGE says DOI declined to show their hand in response.

“Counsel for Defendants did not confirm or deny the RIF plans or provide the requested information to confirm compliance with this Court’s TRO,” the declaration continues.

The DOJ lawyer allegedly wrote back: “Counsel – consistent with the Court’s order, we will produce the required information tomorrow.”

Notably, Illston gave the government until 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time to account for all of the “actual or imminent” RIFs enjoined by her order and to verify compliance with the order. The government also has until that time to provide “a description of the agency that imposed or is planning to impose the enjoined RIF, the number of employees included in the enjoined RIF” as well as a description of the programs, projects, or activities “included in the enjoined RIF.”

In their emergency motion, the plaintiffs said they “have no choice but” to ask the court to “advance the deadline for disclosure of planned RIFs and the manner in which Defendants intend to comply.”

The court, in turn, advanced the deadline as requested.

“The deadline for disclosure of planned RIFs and the manner in which defendants intend to comply with the TRO is ADVANCED from October 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. PDT to October 17, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. PDT,” Illston wrote in a terse, one-page order on Friday morning.

The emergency hearing is slated for 3 p.m. on Friday.

The underlying Sept. 30 litigation was filed by the labor union plaintiffs after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo citing the “opportunity” to reduce agency workforces during the government shutdown. That memo, issued days before the shutdown began, signaled that any such layoffs appeared to be pre-planned and led the court to consider them political in nature.

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 the order granting the requested injunctive relief, the court said the prevalence of “many snafus” committed by the government — and outlined by the plaintiffs — “are testament to” the APA violations. The judge also said the memo issued by OMB directing agencies to consider layoffs during the shutdown likely “rests on illegal grounds.”