This story was updated at 9:40 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 17, to include details from Judge Susan Illston\u2019s written preliminary injunction<\/p>\n
A federal judge in San Francisco is reversing the terminations of hundreds of federal employees finalized during the recent government shutdown.<\/p>\n
A preliminary injuction,<\/a> signed Wednesday by Judge Susan Illston, orders the departments of Education and State, as well as the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration, to rescind reduction in force notices for employees who were terminated between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12 \u2014 the start and end dates of the shutdown.<\/p>\n \u201cAbsent a contrary ruling from a higher court,\u201d Illston is giving agencies until Dec. 23 to carry out the terms of her preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n \u201cDefendants must do what the continuing resolution says. They may not take any further steps to implement or carry out a RIF through January 30, 2026, regardless of when the RIF notice first issued,\u201d Illston wrote.<\/p>\n ]]><\/p>\n These agencies sent RIF notices to employees before the recent government shutdown. In most cases, separations were scheduled to take effect in October or November, during the shutdown.<\/p>\n The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, who are leading a lawsuit with other unions,\u00a0argued agencies that finalized these RIFs during the government shutdown violated a stopgap spending bill passed by Congress that prohibited layoffs through Jan. 30, 2026.<\/p>\n The court issued a temporary restraining order<\/a> earlier this month that blocked layoffs of nearly 250 Foreign Service officers from being finalized at the State Department. Those layoffs were originally scheduled for Nov. 10, but were pushed back to Dec. 5, and remain on hold.<\/p>\n The Trump administration has followed a narrower interpretation of the stopgap spending bill, and has only reinstated federal employees who received RIF notices between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12.<\/p>\n The\u00a0continuing resolution<\/a>\u00a0Congress passed on Nov. 12 states that between Nov. 12, 2025 and Jan. 30, 2026, \u201cno federal funds may be used to initiate, carry out, implement, or otherwise notice a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees within any department.\u201d<\/p>\n It also states that \u201cany reduction in force proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken by an executive agency between October 1, 2025, and the date of enactment, shall have no force or effect.\u201d<\/p>\n At a hearing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Illston said she would grant the preliminary injunction requested by the unions, because the \u201cchaotic nature of these RIFs has been continuing.\u201d<\/p>\n ]]><\/p>\n \u201cThe continuing resolution, ending the longest shutdown the government has experienced to date, said that no federal funds would be spent RIF-ing people through Jan. 30. But that is not what is happening in some of these agencies,\u201d Illston said.<\/p>\n The judge\u2019s order will impact about 680 total federal employees. That includes nearly 250 Foreign Service officers at the State Department, 200 employees at GSA, 150 at the Education Department\u2019s Office for Civil Rights, and nearly 80 at SBA.<\/p>\n During the hearing, Illston said she would consider the Justice Department\u2019s request to delay her preliminary injunction from going into effect for a few days. This would give the Trump administration time to consider whether it will ask a federal appeals court to stay her ruling.<\/p>\n Illston said this would minimize some of the \u201cwhiplash\u201d some federal employees have felt in other court cases, in which lower courts have reinstated them, only for an appeals court to allow layoffs to continue.<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019d have to send a notice, and then another notice, and a notice saying, \u2018Forget what we said yesterday.\u2019 It would be terrible,\u201d Illston said.<\/p>\n Brad Rosenberg, a DOJ attorney representing the Trump administration, said that rescinding layoffs now would be \u201clogistically a big lift\u201d for agencies, especially if the courts later allow those RIFs to proceed.<\/p>\n \u201cIf a RIF is rescinded, and if this court either decides at final judgment in this case, or if the government were to appeal, and an appellate court were to stay or vacate this Court\u2019s preliminary injunction, government agencies would presumably have to start all over again with that, with that process, and it would be awfully hard to unscramble that egg,\u201d Rosenberg said.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s not going to provide the type of long-term relief that I suspect plaintiffs are seeking here,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n