A San Francisco federal judge is set to slam the brakes on President Trump’s bold plan to axe thousands of federal workers.
Courthouse News reported that Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee, signaled Friday she’s ready to issue a temporary restraining order against Executive Order 14210. Here comes another judicial roadblock for the MAGA agenda.
San Francisco, joined by over two dozen local governments, nonprofits, and labor groups, sued the Trump administration two weeks ago to stop the firings.
The executive order, dubbed the “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative, aims to slash federal jobs, sparking outrage among plaintiffs. Trimming bureaucratic fat is a bridge too far for some.
Judge Illston’s inclination to block the order stems from her view that it oversteps the president’s authority. She argues the Constitution demands Congress’s approval for such sweeping agency changes. Funny how checks and balances only seem to matter when it’s Trump in the hot seat.
“The Constitution is structured that way — doesn’t require the cooperation of the courts,” Illston said, emphasizing Congress’s role.
Her logic: agencies are statutory creatures, and only lawmakers can greenlight major shake-ups. Sounds like a convenient excuse to stall a president trying to drain the swamp.
The plaintiffs, led by San Francisco, claim the firings would cripple city services, like frozen Department of Energy grants for green building and EV chargers. They argue the loss of federal workers directly harms their operations. Cry me a river—maybe cities should rely less on D.C.’s handouts.
Executive Order 14210, issued in February, calls for immediate workforce reductions, with some measures kicking in the week after the hearing. More cuts are slated for June, according to court documents. The urgency suggests Trump means business, but the courts are playing spoiler.
Department of Justice attorney Eric Hamilton countered that the order is merely a planning process, not a mandatory purge. He accused plaintiffs of jumping the gun, filing their motion in late April despite the order’s February release. Classic bureaucratic whining—complain first, understand later.
Hamilton argued Congress had already set up systems, like the Merit System Protection Board, to handle federal employment disputes.
“It is, Your Honor,” he replied when Illston questioned if such a radical transformation should go through administrative channels. The DOJ’s point: don’t let activists hijack the courts for policy fights.
“There’s case law in the Ninth Circuit,” Hamilton noted, suggesting delays in filing weaken the plaintiffs’ case. Illston didn’t buy it, leaning toward halting the order to “protect the power of the legislative branch.” Funny, the left never cared about legislative power when Obama wielded his pen.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Danielle Leonard insisted the firings violate the Constitution, lacking any statutory backing. “There will be no harm to the government in maintaining the status quo,” she pleaded. Translation: keep the bloated bureaucracy intact, no questions asked.
Leonard argued the order mandates immediate reductions, disrupting critical government functions. Her passion for “keeping people who do the work” sounds noble until you remember the federal payroll’s notorious inefficiency. Efficiency isn’t exactly the government’s middle name.
Judge Illston referenced a separate San Francisco case from the past three months, where a judge ordered the rehiring of fired workers. The Supreme Court later ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing, forcing agencies to issue clarifying letters to fired employees. History repeats itself—courts love meddling in Trump’s plans.
“I think plaintiffs are likely to succeed,” Illston said, calling the order “ultra vires” for exceeding presidential powers. She cited precedent requiring congressional cooperation for agency overhauls. Yet, one wonders if she’d be this vigilant with a Democrat in office.
Illston promised a written order to formalize her bench ruling, expected Friday. Her decision could delay Trump’s efficiency push indefinitely, frustrating efforts to streamline government. Actions have consequences, but so does judicial activism.