A federal appeals court just slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s bold bid to overhaul the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with a restructuring plan that would’ve sent thousands packing.
The Hill reported that on Wednesday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the administration’s push to resume mass layoffs at key health agencies, upholding a lower court’s block on the sweeping changes.
This saga kicked off earlier in 2025 when HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., rolled out a plan to cut 10,000 jobs and dismantle several subagencies.
Think big names like the Center for Tobacco Products and parts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s a move that promised efficiency but sparked a firestorm.
Back in July 2025, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose, a Biden appointee, put the kibosh on the plan, calling it likely unlawful. That ruling stopped layoffs at four major HHS offices cold.
Nineteen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia jumped into the fray, filing a lawsuit to challenge what they see as a reckless gutting of critical health programs. They’re not backing down, and neither is the administration.
The Trump team appealed, arguing the states lack standing to sue and claiming federal law demands such disputes go through an agency overseeing federal employee protections, not courts.
They even pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling from July 2025 that allowed the Education Department to slash its own workforce. But the 1st Circuit wasn’t buying it.
A three-judge panel from the 1st Circuit—Lara Montecalvo, Julie Rikelman, and Seth Aframe, all Biden nominees—stood firm in their unanimous decision. They refused to lift the lower court’s order, keeping the restructuring on ice.
The administration’s legal team didn’t hold back in their filings, insisting the highest court has already paved the way for such moves. “The Supreme Court has clearly determined that agencies should be able to proceed with their restructuring efforts while litigation proceeds,” the Justice Department wrote. Yet, this argument fell flat with the appeals court, leaving one to wonder if progressive judicial overreach is at play.
The states countered that the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t touch the specific facts or narrow relief in this case. They argue the district court’s findings stand on their own merit. It’s a classic clash of legal interpretation, with taxpayers caught in the middle.
This showdown isn’t just about HHS—it’s part of a larger tug-of-war over how far the administration can push restructuring under recent Supreme Court emergency orders. Those orders, often issued with scant explanation, have sided with the administration elsewhere, but not here.
Critics of the court’s decision might see this as another example of unelected judges meddling in executive priorities. After all, trimming bloated bureaucracies isn’t exactly a radical concept in conservative circles. Still, the scale of these layoffs does raise eyebrows about potential disruptions to public health services.
Supporters of the block, however, argue that such drastic cuts without clear legal grounding risk gutting essential programs. It’s a fair concern, even if one suspects a progressive agenda might be inflating the panic. Balance matters when lives and livelihoods are on the line.
With the 1st Circuit’s emergency plea rejection, the administration’s next move could be a Hail Mary to the Supreme Court. That’s where the real showdown might unfold, given the justices’ recent leanings on agency restructuring.
For now, the 10,000 HHS employees on the chopping block can breathe a temporary sigh of relief, though the uncertainty lingers. The affected offices—spanning tobacco control, early childhood education, disease prevention, and policy evaluation—remain intact, for better or worse.