AFGE v. Trump

A coalition that includes national labor organizations, nonprofits, and six local governments has sued the Trump administration for its unlawful reorganization of the federal government. The coalition is represented by Public Rights Project (PRP), Democracy Forward, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Protect Democracy, and State Democracy Defenders Fund.

In the complaint, we ask the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to stop Executive Order 14210 from going into effect. It requires federal agencies to massively reduce and reorganize their departments. Agencies were required to submit their plans for approval by April 14. 

We argue that the executive order violates the Constitution’s fundamental separation of powers principles. Only Congress has the power to change the federal government in the ways the president has directed. 

The lawsuit details the widespread harm caused or anticipated from the massive federal workforce reduction. Without enough staff, school food programs will be jeopardized, natural disaster relief and recovery will suffer, and responses to public health crises, like the recent measles outbreak in Texas, will be dangerously limited. 

The lawsuit is the largest and most significant challenge to Trump’s authority to remake the government without Congressional approval. 

PRP is representing Baltimore, Md.; Chicago, Ill., Harris County, Texas, and King County, Wash.

Update
On May 1, the local governments and other plaintiffs filed a request for a temporary restraining order to block the ongoing implementation of the executive order. The request was accompanied by 14 declarations from all six governments outlining the harm to their communities.

Read the request.

On May 9, the judge issued the temporary restraining order, which stops the Trump administration from overhauling the federal government for now.

Read the order.

On May 22, 2025, the district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from unlawfully reorganizing the federal government while the case moves through court. 

The court held a hearing centered on arguments about the role of the reorganization and reduction in workforce plans submitted to the Office of Budget and Management and Office of Personnel Management. The plaintiffs argued that the government used these plans to slash budgets based on an unconstitutional executive order. Without a sufficient federal workforce, essential services are at risk, including:

• USDA screening of dangerous products at port of entry 
• Essential weather forecasts from NOAA that help communities prepare for emergencies 
• Irreplaceable CDC resources needed to detect and control disease outbreaks 
• HUD funding that supports housing assistance and prevents community destabilization

The court ruled in our favor. Read the order.

Update
On May 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to pause the district court’s ruling, which prevents the reorganization of the federal government while the case proceeds.

Read the order.

Update
On June 9, the coalition filed a response with the U.S. Supreme Court after the federal government requested an emergency intervention that would allow it to dismantle federal agencies while the case proceeds. 

The coalition asked the court to keep the status quo, arguing that the federal courts have not had the opportunity to rule on the separation of powers concerns we have raised in the lawsuit. The president does not have the authority to reorganize the federal government without congressional approval. 

Our response highlights the harm caused by the administration’s unlawful actions. Hundreds of thousands of federal jobs will be lost, while critical government services are jeopardized. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services has taken steps to cut 10,000 positions (with more to come) and plans to eliminate entire programs, such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention office that monitors lead exposure in children. 

The response also includes evidence from local governments, including their experience relying on federal agencies to provide services and expertise that local governments can’t, from monitoring the weather to responding to disasters to protecting public health.

Read the response.

Update
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a lower court’s ruling that had temporarily stopped the Trump administration from dismantling the federal government and laying off tens of thousands of workers. The court did not decide whether shrinking and reorganizing individual agencies is legal. That issue will be resolved later as the case continues.

The next day, local governments and other plaintiffs asked the trial court to urgently require the administration to share more details about its plans, so the court could decide more quickly if they’re allowed under the law. The trial court responded right away and ordered the government to reply, helping move the case along faster.

Update:

On Sept. 9, a district court denied the federal government’s request to throw out the lawsuit brought by the coalition. However, the court dismissed the coalition’s claims against the Department of Government Efficiency, noting that the group needed to be more specific in naming it as the proper entity. The court gave the coalition the opportunity to revise and refile those claims.

Read the decision.

Update:

On Sept. 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the federal government’s request to stop the district court’s order for discovery requiring production of certain agency reorganization materials to the court. The government claimed it had the privilege to keep certain documents private, however, the court disagreed and allowed discovery to proceed.

The appeals court also set aside (“vacated”) the earlier preliminary injunction and sent it back to the district court to reconsider. Because the U.S. Supreme Court had already paused that injunction, nothing changes on the ground right now; the case continues in the district court, including discovery and the next steps toward a final ruling.

Read the decision.