'Procedurally erroneous': Trump admin claims court order to reveal 'plan' for mass firings could cause 'embarrassment'
Source: Law & Crime
May 12th, 2025, 11:26 am
The Trump administration is asking a federal judge in California to reconsider an order that would force it to disclose its plan for mass firings across multiple agencies as part of the president’s effort to gut the federal workforce, claiming that such “Agency Reductions in Force and Reorganization Plans” (ARRPs) contain privileged information that could, among other things, cause “embarrassment” or “annoyance” for the government.
The underlying litigation challenges President Donald Trump‘s Feb. 11, 2025, executive order: “Implementing The President’s ‘Department Of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.” The order purports to commence a “critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy” by “eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity.” Under the plan, administrative agency heads would be required to “initiate large-scale reductions in force” (RIFs), or massive layoffs, in service of the goal to restructure the government.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Bill Clinton appointee, granted a request from a coalition of labor unions, nonprofit groups, and municipalities to block the planned firings via a temporary retraining order. The judge also issued a “Disclosure Order” directing that ARRPs submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) be provided to the court by Tuesday. The administration on Sunday sought to have Illston put a hold on the disclosure order prior to the impending deadline.
“The Court should either grant Defendants a protective order from the obligation to disclose the ARRPs or reconsider the Disclosure Order because the ARRPs are privileged pre-decisional and deliberative agency planning documents,” the 14-page filing states.
Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/procedurally-erroneous-trump-admin-claims-court-order-to-reveal-plan-for-mass-firings-could-cause-embarrassment/
The Executive Branch can't unilaterally do "RIFs" (Reductions in Force). These are authorized by Congress and plans are done in consultation with Congress. But they did a Fire! Aim. Ready.
From their earlier article (where this portion of the ruling was repeated in this OP's article) - https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/no-statutory-authority-whatsoever-judge-rubbishes-doge-in-case-over-trumps-efforts-to-mass-fire-federal-workers-issues-temporary-restraining-order/
One of the key problems, Illston observed, was tasking three agencies and offices – the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – with most of the heavy lifting. In the litigation, the plaintiffs single out specific memos by OPM and OMB and the widely-publicized – and often self-trumpeted – actions undertaken by DOGE as “unconstitutional and unlawful orders” as part of what they referred to as Trump’s “radical transformation.”
The court finds that neither OPM nor OMB have any statutory authority to terminate employees – aside from their own internal employees – “or to order other agencies to downsize” or to restructure other agencies. And, as far as the Elon Musk-led agency is concerned, the judge is withering: “As plaintiffs rightly note, DOGE ‘has no statutory authority at all.'”
“In sum, no statute gives OPM, OMB, or DOGE the authority to direct other federal agencies to engage in large-scale terminations, restructuring, or elimination of itself,” Illston writes. “Such action is far outside the bounds of any authority that Congress vested in OPM or OMB, and, as noted, DOGE has no statutory authority whatsoever.”
(snip)
3 months since this all started
= new reply since forum marked as read
