INTRODUCTION
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision to uphold a preliminary injunction against President Trump Administration’s sweeping federal workforce downsizing order spotlighted core constitutional, statutory, and policy tensions. On February 11, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14099 mandating “large-scale reductions in force (RIFs)” across executive agencies and creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to review hiring and reorganizations. Labor unions (AFGE, AFSCME) and municipalities (San Francisco, Chicago) filed suit, arguing that such broad cuts require explicit Congressional delegation under the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In blocking the order, District Judge Susan Illston held that “agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a President may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress” (Illston, N.D. Cal., Apr. 18, 2025) .
At its core, the dispute raises questions about separation of powers, statutory interpretation of the Civil Service Reform Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1101–7133), and the scope of executive authority under the “Reorganization Act of 1949” (63 Stat. 203). Proponents contend that the President retains “inherent constitutional authority” to manage the executive branch efficiently, especially under the “Take Care Clause” (Art. II, § 3). Critics counter that Congress structured federal employment protections precisely to preclude capricious, politically motivated furloughs or firings, citing 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)’s prohibition on “removals for partisan or political reasons.”
“This case crystallizes the enduring tension between the executive’s duty to manage its workforce and Congress’s prerogative to appropriate and legislate,” notes Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe . The following analysis will explore the legal and historical foundations, current proceedings, competing viewpoints, historical analogues, and projected policy consequences of this landmark dispute.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Federal workforce management stems from the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, which curtailed the “spoils system” by establishing merit-based hiring and protections against arbitrary dismissal (22 Stat. 403). The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-454) refined these protections, codifying procedures for RIFs under 5 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 3502 requires agencies to follow “last-in, first-out” seniority principles unless “unavoidable” circumstances warrant deviations. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issues regulations governing competitive service, appointments, and separations (5 C.F.R. § 351.401–.503).
Historically, presidents have occasionally reorganized agencies—most notably Harry S. Truman’s 1949 Reorganization Plan No. 1 consolidating economic agencies and Jimmy Carter’s 1977 reorganization of energy regulatory bodies. Congress enacted the “Reorganization Act of 1949” (63 Stat. 203) to grant conditional authority for executive reorganizations, subject to a 60-day legislative review period. Reorganization authority lapsed in 1994, requiring explicit statutory delegation for further structural shifts (Melcher v. Federal Open Market Committee, 700 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1983), aff’d 466 U.S. 783 (1984)).
Key precedents include Elgin v. Department of Treasury (567 U.S. 1 (2012)), affirming constitutional limits on executive removal power, and Bowsher v. Synar (478 U.S. 714 (1986)), invalidating Congress’s attempt to reserve executive removal to itself. In United States v. Testan (424 U.S. 392 (1976)), the Supreme Court underscored that absent clear statutory mandates, executive agencies lack authority to override appropriations. Constitutional scholars like Bruce Ackerman note, “Unfettered executive reorganizations would undermine bicameralism and the presentment requirement” . These legal and historical precedents frame today’s contest over the Executive Order’s legitimacy.
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Ninth Circuit appeal (State of California et al. v. Trump, Ninth Cir. No. 25-15510) followed the District Court’s April 18, 2025 issuance of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs contended that Executive Order 14099 violated the Civil Service Reform Act and the Appropriations Clause (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) by cutting staffing without defunding or explicit Congressional authorization. They argued irreparable harm due to disrupted agency missions, halted hiring of scientific and public safety personnel, and threatened furloughs impacting ongoing federal litigation.
Defendants (DOJ Solicitor General’s Office) maintained that the President’s inherent constitutional power under Article II includes managing the executive branch and ensuring “efficient operations,” invoking Myers v. United States (272 U.S. 52 (1926)). DOJ filed an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), seeking a stay of the injunction. Oral argument occurred on May 15, 2025, before Judges Fletcher, Koh, and Ikuta. In their May 29, 2025 2–1 decision, Judges Fletcher and Koh affirmed the injunction, emphasizing that “Congress has not granted blanket reorganization authority since 1994, and the Civil Service Reform Act enshrines procedural safeguards that cannot be bypassed.” Judge Ikuta dissented, opining “Executive management of the civil service, including staffing levels, is the quintessential executive function.”
Filings reveal DOJ’s reliance on the “Take Care Clause” and the President’s budgetary proposal powers under 31 U.S.C. § 1105. Plaintiffs submitted amici briefs from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Academy of Public Administration, arguing that abrupt RIFs risked national security and essential services. The case remains preliminarily intact; the government may seek en banc review or Supreme Court certiorari. Meanwhile, agencies affected by the injunction have suspended all RIF-related activities pending further order.
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive/Liberal Perspectives
Critics from across Democratic policymakers, civil rights organizations, and scholarly institutions argue that Executive Order 14099 undermines due process and equal protection principles enshrined in the Fifth Amendment. “This executive action flagrantly disregards the merit-system principles that protect employees from political coercion,” asserts Bard College constitutional law scholar Jamal Greene . The Brennan Center for Justice, in its amicus brief, contended that “without clear Congressional authorization, wholesale cuts threaten federal functions ranging from public health to environmental protection” .
Progressive lawmakers—Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—criticize the order for “weaponizing budgetary authority to impose ideological priorities,” invoking the Congressional Budget Act of 1974’s mandate that only Congress set spending levels (2 U.S.C. §§ 601–688). The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) highlighted how “front-line employees in VA hospitals, EPA field offices, and OSHA inspectors face furloughs that endanger lives” . Scholars emphasize that the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559) requires “notice-and-comment” for agency reorganization plans, which was entirely bypassed.
Liberal think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, warn of chilling effects on whistleblowers and career staff: “When political appointees can instantly reshape agency priorities via mass firings, oversight and expertise erode,” notes former OPM Director Katherine Archuleta . Advocacy groups also underscore the unilateral nature of the order contravenes the National Labor Relations Act’s spirit, even though federal employees are technically excluded from NLRA coverage.
Conservative/Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conservative commentators and Republican lawmakers laud the order as a necessary check on bureaucratic bloat. “For too long, career civil servants operated without accountability; this is a rightful exercise of executive control,” argues Federalist Society fellow Ilya Shapiro . The Heritage Foundation’s analysis asserts that agencies like the IRS and EPA have grown “by over 15 percent since 2017” and “must be streamlined to reflect taxpayer priorities” .
Republican members of Congress—House Oversight Chairman James Comer and Senate Homeland Security ranking member Ron Johnson—contend that “Congress delegated inherent executive management authority, including staffing, to the President, consistent with Myers and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (295 U.S. 602 (1935))” . The Manhattan Institute published a policy paper arguing that “centralizing reviews of hiring and RIF decisions in DOGE will enforce fiscal discipline and curb mission creep.” Conservative legal analyst Andrew McCarthy maintains “Congress cannot micro-manage the day-to-day operations of hundreds of agencies; otherwise, the unitary executive collapses” .
Security-focused groups, including the Heritage Foundation’s Taskforce on National Security and Law, warn that delaying RIFs disrupts essential modernization efforts in defense and cybersecurity. They argue that invoking the Civil Service Reform Act to block the order is “a transparent guise for preserving entrenched special interests within federal agencies.” Nevertheless, critics caution that unchecked executive RIF power could pave the way for politically motivated purges of inspectors general and career experts.
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
The principal historical analogue is President Harry Truman’s 1952 seizure of steel mills during the Korean War in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579 (1952)). There, the Supreme Court held that President Truman lacked authority to nationalize steel mills absent congressional statute. Justice Jackson’s concurrence established the tripartite framework for executive power, noting that when the President acts in absence of either Congressional grant or denial, his authority is at its “lowest ebb.” This framework guides analysis in the current dispute: Trump’s order lacks explicit legislative backing, situating it in Jackson’s second category.
Similarly, President Bill Clinton’s 1995 RIFs proposed under the “Reinventing Government” initiative encountered congressional resistance. Although ultimately scaled back, the episode underscored Congress’s prerogative to approve major staffing shifts (Reinventing Government Act, Pub. L. 103-62 (1993)). “Reagan’s 1983 ‘Grace Commission’ recommendations to trim the federal workforce were largely advisory and required Congressional implementation,” notes Georgetown Law historian Kermit Roosevelt . Reagan’s inability to fully enforce those recommendations evidences the need for legislative partnership.
In Bowsher v. Synar (478 U.S. 714 (1986)), the Supreme Court invalidated a statute that vested removal authority over the Comptroller General in Congress, reinforcing separation-of-powers boundaries. Although not directly about RIFs, it demonstrates that indirect congressional control over executive personnel decisions invites constitutional infirmities. Academic William N. Eskridge Jr. observes, “The balance struck in Bowsher ensures that neither branch eclipses the other in personnel and budget matters” .
Finally, in Elgin v. Department of Treasury (567 U.S. 1 (2012)), the Court upheld post-employment restrictions for certain federal employees, implicitly recognizing that Congress can constrain the executive by statute. Together, these cases form a tapestry of precedents affirming that sweeping workforce changes require clear Congressional authorization, a principle central to the pending appeal.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
If the injunction remains in place, agencies will continue operating under existing staffing levels, potentially affecting modernization efforts and budgetary targets. In the short term, agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency face funding constraints tied to headcount; delays in RIFs could force spending cuts in programs or temporary hiring freezes. “Absent timely reorganization, mission-critical functions—like border security personnel vetting and cybersecurity upgrades at DHS—may be compromised,” warns Cato Institute policy researcher Christopher Preble .
Long-term implications extend to executive–legislative relations. Congress may feel emboldened to insert more granular language in appropriation bills specifying permissible FTE (full-time equivalent) caps, thereby further constraining the President’s management prerogatives. Some Democratic lawmakers have already drafted the “Federal Workforce Protection Act” to codify additional procedural steps before RIFs. Conversely, a Supreme Court reversal could establish broader executive latitude, inviting successive administrations to impose politically motivated workforce changes without Congressional consultation. Such precedent could destabilize career protections and erode institutional memory.
There are also civil service morale implications. A sustained injunction may reassure career staff and unions, but uncertainty reigns: “Workforce morale teeters when political appointees threaten mass reassignments,” states Brookings senior fellow William Galston . Furthermore, international partners monitoring U.S. stability may interpret executive–legislative conflict as governance dysfunction. The International Monetary Fund’s governance risk assessments could downgrade U.S. executive credibility, potentially affecting global economic perceptions.
Should legislation codify more detailed RIF procedures, policymakers must weigh efficiency gains against risks of politicized purges. As federal agencies continue expanding in specialized areas—climate science, pandemic preparedness—rigid staffing caps may hinder adaptability. The Supreme Court’s final determination will signal whether the modern administrative state retains insulation from political swings or becomes more dependent on fluid executive directives.
CONCLUSION
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to maintain the injunction against Executive Order 14099 crystallizes a fundamental separation-of-powers conflict over executive management of the federal workforce. On one side, proponents emphasize the President’s Article II responsibility to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed and to manage an efficient executive branch. On the other, opponents underscore Congress’s constitutional authority under Article I to appropriate funds, legislate civil service protections, and review reorganizations. “When executive prerogatives collide with statutory safeguards, our constitutional fabric demands clarity,” argues Georgetown University constitutional scholar Louis Fisher .
Progressive critics warn that unchecked RIF authority jeopardizes due process and core missions of vital agencies, from public health to environmental regulation. Conservative proponents counter that bureaucratic bloat threatens national security and fiscal discipline. Historical precedents, including Youngstown and Elgin, consistently affirm that unilateral executive workforce cuts without clear Congressional approval risk constitutional overreach.
The policy stakes are high: sustained injunctions may preserve agency functions in the near term but could embolden Congress to impose even stricter staffing mandates. A contrary ruling could encourage future administrations to leverage RIFs for ideological ends, potentially hampering institutional continuity. For federal employees and policy stakeholders, the central question remains: should decisions on workforce size and agency reorganization rest primarily with elected legislators or with the President’s managerial discretion?
“Ultimately, this case tests the enduring question of who holds the pen over the size and shape of America’s governing bureaucracy,” concludes Cornell Law professor Heather Gerken . As the Supreme Court’s involvement looms, legal and policy observers must ask: will the decision recalibrate executive–legislative balance or merely reaffirm existing doctrines?
For Further Reading
- Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration’s downsizing of the federal workforce
- Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration’s downsizing of federal workforce
- Trump’s mass firings to remain on hold, appeals court rules
- Appeals court refuses to pause order blocking Trump administration downsizing of the federal workforce
- Judge pauses much of Trump administration’s massive job cuts at federal agencies
