A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from laying off thousands of federal employees amid the government shutdown, ruling in favor of unions that challenged the mass firings as unlawful.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the restraining order on October 15, 2025, after hearing arguments from two major unions—the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO. She found that the administration was likely violating the law by using the funding lapse to carry out pre-existing plans to downsize the federal workforce. The judge cited public statements by President Donald Trump and Budget Director Russell Vought that indicated political motivations, such as targeting “Democrat agencies.” Illston emphasized that the layoffs were not justified as essential services during the shutdown, given that most workers were already furloughed without pay.
The unions had filed a lawsuit alleging that the administration was unlawfully exploiting the shutdown to implement widespread workforce reductions. They argued that the firings violated federal labor laws and procedural requirements, as the shutdown did not provide a legal basis for such actions. Judge Illston agreed, stating that the plaintiffs showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and she granted the emergency restraining order to prevent irreparable harm to employees while the case proceeds.
Prior to the court order, the Trump administration had begun notifying thousands of workers of their termination, with initial plans targeting approximately 4,000 employees across more than 30 agencies. Budget Director Vought had publicly indicated that the total number of layoffs could eventually exceed 10,000, describing the effort as part of a broader strategy to reduce the size of the federal government. These actions were framed as necessary cost-cutting measures, but critics accused the administration of using the shutdown as a pretext for ideological downsizing.
Specific departments faced significant cuts, with the Treasury Department planning to lay off around 1,446 employees and Health and Human Services initially targeting 1,100 to 1,200 positions before scaling back to about half that number. Other agencies, including Homeland Security, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Energy, each intended to eliminate hundreds of jobs, according to filings from the Office of Management and Budget. The layoffs were concentrated in non-essential roles, but unions warned that they could disrupt critical services over time.
The government shutdown, now in its third week, began on October 1, 2025, after Republicans and Democrats failed to reach a agreement on a funding resolution. Republicans, who control both houses of Congress and the White House, have blamed Democrats for the impasse, insisting on a “clean” funding bill that continues current spending levels. Democrats, however, have held out for provisions to address rising health care costs for lower-income Americans, creating a political stalemate that has repeatedly stalled Senate votes.
The restraining order is temporary, and the Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision promptly. If the appeal proceeds, it could lead to higher court reviews that may clarify the legal boundaries of executive power during shutdowns. In the meantime, the layoffs are on hold, providing relief to affected workers but leaving the underlying budgetary and political conflicts unresolved. The case will likely advance to a full hearing on whether the administration’s actions comply with federal labor and administrative laws.
This judicial intervention underscores the escalating tensions between the executive branch and other stakeholders over the scope of government reorganization. The outcome could influence future shutdown responses and set precedents for how workforce reductions are handled during fiscal crises. For now, the ruling highlights the role of the judiciary in checking administrative overreach, but the prolonged shutdown continues to strain federal operations and public services, with no quick resolution in sight.