OMAHA (DTN) -- A federal judge in California has blocked USDA and other federal agencies from launching mass firings and reorganizing their departments.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston from the Northern District of California, granted a preliminary injunction late Thursday extending her order that halts President Donald Trump's executive order that directed mass "reductions in force."

The order affects 21 federal departments or agencies, including USDA. The order delays USDA's plans to reorganize and slash jobs.

A collection of labor unions for federal employees, six local governments and other non-profit groups, including the Northeast Organic Farming Association, had sued to block the executive order. The groups argued Trump doesn't have the authority to completely overhaul the executive branch without approval from Congress.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had planned to lay out reorganization plans for the department as early as May 27. Rollins touched on the subject earlier this week when she was in Nebraska. She indicated the move would push more staff out of Washington, D.C., "to where we can serve our customers better, as well as being more efficient and more effective with taxpayer dollars," Rollins said.

She added, "The plan is ready. We're ready to announce it. We're excited about it. It's going to be about realigning and refocusing USDA around its original intended mission."

USDA has shed about 15,000 positions since the Trump administration took over, including dismissing probationary employees and offering payments to staff to leave their positions. The cuts include more than 4,000 staff at the U.S. Forest Service; 2,400 at the Natural Resources Conservation Service; 1,500 from Rural Development; nearly 1,400 from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 1,250 from the Agricultural Research Service; and hundreds of other job cuts across other USDA agencies.

Along with that, it was reported this week that the Trump administration wants to move roughly 1,600 USDA Forest Service firefighters over to the Department of Interior to create a new "Federal Wildland Fire Service" under Interior's oversight.

In her ruling late Thursday, Illston said federal agencies acted quickly following Trump's Feb. 11 executive order for large scale "reductions in force" (RIFs) and reorganizations. Agencies began implementing plans without any Congressional approval. Illston also said there was evidence that federal departments were intentionally not following tasks assigned to them by Congress.

"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 noted nine presidents over the past century have sought and obtained authority from Congress before reorganizing the executive branch. Other presidents, including President George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Trump in his first term also asked Congress for authority to reorganize but did not receive it, Illston wrote.

"Put simply, in this case, defendants (the Trump administration) want the Court to declare that nine presidents and 21 Congresses did not properly understand the separation of powers or ignore how the executive branch is implementing large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations."

The Trump administration countered that federal agencies have direct authority from Congress to conduct RIFs, and the president can direct those cuts.

Massive RIFs also would prevent agencies from carrying out orders directed by Congress. In making that claim, Illston cited examples nationally of agencies not able to meet their missions. Among the examples, the Farm Service Agency in Vermont had been unable to provide disaster loans to farmers following flooding because FSA didn't have the staff to inspect the fields for a month, and the farmer "consequently missed the planting window that season."

"The department now reportedly intends to further reduce staff at the agency. Other farmers have reported their contacts at the department have been laid off and the remaining staff are not familiar with their farms or other projects," the judge cited.

Illston's ruling is just one of an array of court cases. A separate federal judge in Massachusetts had blocked the Trump administration's attempt to shut down the Department of Education and ordered the reinstatement of thousands of federal employees.

The Trump administration filed an emergency request May 16 against Illston's initial temporary restraining order. As of Friday, the High Court had not acted on that request.

During the livestreamed hearing on Thursday, Illston said she believed the unions and other plaintiffs would succeed in their claims in showing that the Trump administration was usurping the constitutional powers of Congress.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Bernie had argued the unions and opponents were trying to take away agency discretion and maintained that a memorandum from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) did not mean those two offices were making final decisions on the layoffs. The memo, however, did require agencies to submit their plans to OMB and OPM for approval.

A lawyer for one of the plaintiffs in the case pointed out the memorandum to agencies ordered them to "focus on maximum elimination of functions" that were not required in statutes.

Bernie told Illston in response, "Maximum elimination doesn't mean the elimination of everything."

Also see, "More Than 15,000 Employees Leaving USDA as White House Proposes More Budget Cuts," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.