WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court upheld a legal pause on President Trump’s mass firings from various agencies, delivering the Republican administration another legal setback in reshaping the executive branch. The San Francisco-based US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 opinion Friday declined to let the Trump administration proceed with its staffing cuts, following a pause by a federal judge earlier this month to its reductions in force (RIFs) efforts overseen by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). At issue was Trump’s Feb. 13 executive order demanding the "large-scale reductions in force" to federal agencies, which prompted a coalition of unions, non-profits and local governments to sue. "The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President’s supervisory powers under the Constitution," wrote Circuit Judge William Fletcher, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. "The President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies," he added. "But even that power is not unlimited." The majority opinion, joined by Biden-appointed Circuit Judge Lucy Koh, also noted "cuts of up to 50%" of Department of Energy staff, the elimination of AmeriCorps volunteer youth programs and the layoffs of thousands of other probationary employees in the government. Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan in a dissenting opinion charged that the plaintiffs were "bypassing the comprehensive administrative scheme that Congress has enacted to handle federal sector labor and employment disputes." “The district court nevertheless entertained Plaintiffs’ claims and concluded that the Executive’s actions likely violate separation of powers — without making any finding that any agency’s RIF is likely to violate any statute,” wrote Callahan, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. “The court then entered a sweeping preliminary injunction that strips the Executive of control over its own personnel,” she disputed the lower court ruling, noting the Trump administration was likely to succeed in the case. The Trump administration had previously asked the US Supreme Court to intervene and allow the federal workforce restructuring initiated by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget — but the high court has yet to take up the case. US District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco granted a temporary restraining order on the restructuring for 14 days, ruling May 9 that Trump officials had made the move without congressional authorization. “The Court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families, and communities,” Illston wrote. On May 22, the California judge extended that to a preliminary injunction, initiating the appeal to the federal circuit court. “A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields fired back in a statement. “The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch — singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President’s agenda.” A second appeal to the Supreme Court has yet to be filed. This legal battle centers on Trump’s aggressive approach to reducing the federal workforce, a key element of his administration’s efforts to curb spending and streamline government operations. The core argument is whether the executive order, which directed agencies to implement significant RIFs, overstepped its constitutional authority.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision reflects a significant hurdle for the Trump administration, suggesting that the courts are wary of allowing the executive branch to unilaterally dismantle established federal personnel policies. The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate impact on the federal workforce; it raises broader questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, and the scope of presidential authority in managing government operations. The ongoing legal challenges highlight the deep divisions within the country regarding the role of government and the proper exercise of executive power. The case continues to be closely watched as it could set a precedent for future challenges to presidential actions. Further developments are anticipated as the Trump administration considers its options, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. The legal arguments surrounding this case underscore the importance of checks and balances within the American system of government, and the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of presidential power.