{"id":55248,"date":"2025-07-10T22:36:13","date_gmt":"2025-07-10T22:36:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/55248\/"},"modified":"2025-07-10T22:36:13","modified_gmt":"2025-07-10T22:36:13","slug":"court-fight-over-rifs-continues-after-supreme-court-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/55248\/","title":{"rendered":"Court fight over RIFs continues after Supreme Court ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Supreme Court ruling<\/a> this week gave the Trump Administration the go-ahead to move forward with broad agency reorganization and staff reduction plans, at least for the time being. But it\u2019s looking increasingly likely that agencies will have to, at a minimum, publicly disclose what those plans are as the fight over the administration\u2019s downsizing plans continues in trial and appellate courts.<\/p>\n

In an order<\/a> Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston indicated she hasn\u2019t been persuaded by the government\u2019s argument that the agency RIF and reorganization plans (ARRPs) are shielded by deliberative process privilege and ordered the government attorneys to respond by Monday with arguments about why they continue to believe the full contents shouldn\u2019t be released.<\/p>\n

The order came shortly after an urgent filing<\/a> by union attorneys in the wake of Tuesday\u2019s Supreme Court ruling, which found that President Trump generally had the authority to order agencies to come up with staff reduction plans. But importantly, the attorneys noted, the court explicitly said it was not ruling on the legality of the plans themselves.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ARRPs and related documents are highly relevant to the issue that the Supreme Court\u2019s order expressly leaves open,\u201d they wrote, while noting that they believe RIFs under the still-secret plans are now imminent. \u201cThe ARRPs and related documents will shed light on the scope and nature of actions implementing these orders, and, in particular, whether defendants are \u2018engag[ing] in reasoned decisionmaking,\u2019 which means that the agency actions must be both \u2018reasonable and reasonably explained.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

]]><\/p>\n

Dozens of RIF plans ready to implement<\/p>\n

In its application to the Supreme Court for the emergency stay the court granted Tuesday, the government disclosed that 40 separate RIF plans at 17 agencies were ready to be implemented, and were only being blocked by a preliminary injunction Judge Illston issued last month.<\/p>\n

In her order Wednesday, Illston said the government will at least need to disclose which agencies those are by Monday. She also indicated that after privately reviewing a handful of the RIF plans in her chambers, she is inclined to order their release in full.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe court is of the view that, at minimum, the final versions of the ARRPs at the 17 agencies referenced before the Supreme Court are not covered by the deliberative process privilege,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIf defendants considered these RIFs enjoined by the court\u2019s preliminary injunction, then it follows that the RIFs resulted from the defendant agencies\u2019 ARRPs. As such, the ARRPs at these agencies are likely not pre-decisional and deliberative documents. Even if they were, the court finds persuasive plaintiffs\u2019 arguments about the qualified nature of the privilege.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the February workforce reduction executive order<\/a> the Supreme Court preliminarily upheld this week, federal agencies were required to submit their RIF plans in two phases: the first by March 13 and the second by April 14. According to the government\u2019s court filings, at least some of those plans have received implementation approval from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management.<\/p>\n

Government argues RIF plans are sensitive documents<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the administration has maintained that the documents should be shielded by a protective order because they contain highly sensitive information and because they remain \u201cpredecisional.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo ARRP is ever final,\u201d Stephen Billy, an OMB senior advisor, told Judge Illston\u2019s court in a declaration<\/a> filed in May. \u201cARRPs are living documents that are always subject to change as agency needs and circumstances may dictate, or simply due to an agency rethinking or reconsidering an issue. They may change drastically as a result of new leadership joining an agency, as agency officials are confirmed by the Senate to their posts. Indeed, the non-final and frequently changing nature of ARRPs is one of the reasons OMB and OPM requested that the agencies submit monthly progress reports in May, June, and July.\u201d<\/p>\n

Recourse for individual workers<\/p>\n

In addition to possible court challenges that might stem from the release or implementation of the individual agencies\u2019 AARPs, individual workers who are ultimately subjected to RIFs would still have recourse before the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.<\/p>\n

]]><\/p>\n

During the MSPB process, agencies would have the burden to prove that they complied with federal RIF regulations when they decided to terminate a particular employee, said Michael Fallings, a managing partner at the law firm Tully Rinckey. And that hasn\u2019t always been the case in the RIFs the administration has conducted so far.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the most common things we\u2019ve seen were errors in what the employee\u2019s service computation date was, or there were errors in what their performance evaluation ratings were for certain periods,\u201d he said. \u201cIn some of these large agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs or other agencies where it\u2019s likely not the whole agency is trying to be dismantled, but just a certain group of employees, the agency has to prove that a certain employee is within the right competitive level and the competitive group. And that means that those employees are performing similarly situated duties. So what an employee could do is investigate to determine whether they\u2019re part of that correct group and whether they\u2019re performing the similarly situated duties to those other employees. And whether they\u2019re ranked properly does have to do with their tenure and their job performance as well.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the Supreme Court also left open the possibility that any particular agency\u2019s ARRP could be invalidated by courts before individual employee terminations even begin.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court is really commenting on the administration\u2019s powers and what it can do in reshaping the government,\u201d Fallings said. \u201cIt is permitting the administration to take efforts to reduce the size of the workforce. But it doesn\u2019t mean that how the administration ultimately does so would be meritorious. There still may be and will be rulings on whether it\u2019s done correctly.\u201d<\/p>\n

Copyright
\n \u00a9\u00a02025 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Supreme Court ruling this week gave the Trump Administration the go-ahead to move forward with broad agency…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":55249,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[40718,50,26754,278,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-55248","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-agency-reorganization-and-rif-plan","10":"tag-news","11":"tag-reduction-in-force","12":"tag-supreme-court","13":"tag-united-states","14":"tag-unitedstates","15":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114831332712392977","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55248\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/55249"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}