The Trump administration is refusing to comply with a Federal judge’s request for the administration to submit its agency reduction-in-force (RIF) plans to the court, and instead is arguing that last week’s Supreme Court decision on the issue “effectively ends” the case.
That judge is California-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, whose original decision led to the agency RIF pause that was brought before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision allowed the administration to proceed with its plans to lay off thousands of Federal employees at 19 agencies.
However, the Supreme Court made clear that its ruling was based solely on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order that required Federal agencies to prepare reorganization and RIF plans. The Supreme Court said its ruling was not based on the legality of the RIF plans themselves, noting that those “plans are not before this Court.”
Therefore, Judge Illston issued a fresh order on July 9 saying that the content of those plans “remains squarely at issue in this case.” Illston ordered the Trump administration to submit the RIF plans for further examination by July 14.
However, in its response on Monday, the Trump administration said it would not produce its agency RIF and reorganization plans (ARRPs) to the court, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision “effectively ends this case.”
“Plaintiffs sought this relief without filing a proper motion, instead implausibly framing their demand for unfinalized RIFs as a request for mere ‘modification’ of the Court’s since-stayed order granting expedited discovery of submitted ARRPs,” the Trump administration wrote.
“The Court should not grant Plaintiffs any further relief on this motion or any other similar motion,” it argued. “In particular, there is no basis for any further relief related to Plaintiffs’ demand for information about potential future RIFs. Nor should the Court order disclosure of any agency ARRPs, and it should deny the mass disclosure Plaintiffs have requested in their latest request.”
While the Trump administration may not be required to produce the RIF plans in the existing case, it does provide an opportunity for others to challenge the legality of the plans.
The Supreme Court is not standing in the way of the Trump administration from moving forward with its mass layoff plans, but it has not yet issued any language about whether the layoffs are likely to be lawful.