On May 16, 2025, the Trump administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a temporary restraining order that halted its efforts to reduce the federal workforce. This restraining order, issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco, blocked the implementation of a February executive order aimed at downsizing the federal government.

The executive order, signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025, directed large-scale reductions in the federal workforce. It mandated that federal agencies, excluding those involved in law and immigration enforcement, obtain approval from the Department of Government Efficiency before hiring new employees. This initiative led to the dismissal of thousands of federal workers, with at least 75,000 employees opting for deferred resignation programs.

The executive order faced immediate legal challenges from labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments. Plaintiffs, including the cities of San Francisco, Chicago, and Baltimore, argued that the mass layoffs would disrupt essential federal operations, such as disaster inspections and Social Security services. Judge Illston's restraining order cited these potential disruptions, emphasizing that the affected agencies were established by Congress and that such significant restructuring required legislative approval.

The Justice Department contends that Judge Illston overstepped her authority by issuing the restraining order. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton argued that the executive order and accompanying memorandum provided general guidance for agencies to implement staffing changes, inviting comments and proposals for legislative engagement. The administration maintains that the order does not mandate immediate action but sets out principles for agencies to follow.

In addition to appealing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the restraining order and proceed with the planned workforce reductions.

The administration's downsizing efforts have already led to significant workforce reductions across various federal agencies. For instance, a union representing federal workers who research health hazards faced by mineworkers reported that 221 out of 222 workers in its Pittsburgh office were poised to lose their jobs. Additionally, a Vermont farmer experienced delays in disaster aid due to the unavailability of timely inspections, and reductions in Social Security Administration staff have resulted in longer wait times for recipients.

This legal battle is part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the federal government. In March 2025, a federal appeals court lifted an injunction that had blocked an executive order limiting union bargaining rights for many federal employees. The order exempts over a dozen federal agencies from the obligation to negotiate with unions, affecting approximately 75% of union-represented federal workers.

Furthermore, the administration has sought to reduce the operations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). A three-judge federal appeals court panel recently deliberated over the administration's attempt to significantly scale back or shut down the CFPB, highlighting ongoing legal disputes over the extent of executive power in restructuring federal agencies.

The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on the restraining order will have significant implications for the administration's ability to implement its workforce reduction plans and could set a precedent for future executive actions aimed at restructuring federal agencies.