Judge extends order blocking Trump's shutdown-related mass firings
A combat veteran said of her shutdown-related layoff: "I have never gone through anything as traumatizing as what I am now experiencing."
On the 28th day of the government shutdown, a federal judge extended her order blocking the Trump administration from using the occasion to fire thousands of workers.
The leader of Democracy Forward, one of the advocacy groups behind the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling.
“This order is positive for the American people and a major blow to the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful attempt to make the Project 2025 playbook a reality by targeting our nation’s career public servants, who work for all Americans,” the group’s CEO and president Skye Perryman wrote in a statement. “Our team is honored to represent the civil servants who are fighting back against President Trump’s dangerous agenda, and to have won this crucial injunction that will help stop federal workers from continuing to be targeted and harassed by this administration during the shutdown.”
“The human cost”
Before she issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston commented on “the human cost” of the Trump administration’s “politically motivated” decision to lay off thousands of people during the government shutdown.
On Tuesday, Illston began a roughly 90-minute hearing by reading the stories of some of the workers affected, including a sworn declaration from Air Force veteran Sonya Crocker.
“Prior to my current job, I worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and before that I was in the United States Air Force,” Crocker wrote. “During all that time, including during my combat deployment, I have never gone through anything as traumatizing as what I am now experiencing.”
During the hearing, Justice Department senior attorney Michael Velchik articulated a sweeping vision of executive power in which Donald Trump can fire government workers without limitation as soon as there is a lapse in Congressional appropriations.
“Is it correct that during the government shutdown, such programs are no longer statutorily required? Your answer is yes,” Judge Illston said.
Velchik agreed: “Congress has not appropriated money for those programs to be carried out,” he argued.
When Velchik represented the government during litigation over Harvard University’s funding, The Boston Globe reported that, as a college student, the then-future Trump Justice Department lawyer wrote a paper from Adolf Hitler’s perspective and praised the dictator’s antisemitic screed “Mein Kampf.” The Justice Department defended Velchik in the wake of the reporting, and he still appears for the government in high-profile cases.
“That is absurd”
On Tuesday, Velchik argued that the public voted for Trump’s mass layoffs.
“I mean the American people selected someone known above all else for his eloquence in communicating to employees that, ‘You’re fired’ — like, this is what they voted for,” said Velchik, quoting Trump’s tagline on “The Apprentice.”
“Eloquence of doing so?” Illston repeated, incredulously.
“Yes, he’s known for, above all, I think that is sort of what he was known for,” Velchik insisted.
Attorney Danielle Leonard, representing a coalition of unions led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), carried out Velchik’s argument to its logical endpoint.
“What counsel is arguing is that if Congress lets government funding lapse for one day, the president can fire the entire federal government,” Leonard noted. “That is absurd.”
Trump openly bragged about his plans to target so-called “Democrat Agencies” on his social media platform, writing: “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.” He also posted an AI-generated video of his Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought depicted as the grim reaper.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, Leonard said, the government is not allowed to act based on “political, partisan retribution.”
“That is not just a question of a president’s priorities,” she said in court. “That is not just a question of the greater priority justification for looking at a program and saying, ‘Is that a policy decision that we agree with or not?’ That is partisan retribution. That is not permissible under the law. That is arbitrary and capricious.”
Judge Illston said that she plans to issue a written order later today.
This is a developing story.
Thank goodness for Democracy Forward + judges that follow the law.
How wonderful it would be if some members of the Supreme Court had an intact spine and adhered to the law as exemplified by this judge today.