A federal judge in San Francisco dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration on December 17, ordering the reinstatement of hundreds of federal workers who were unlawfully fired during the government shutdown and directing full back pay for all affected employees.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California ruled that the administration’s actions violated a law passed by Congress when it ended the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. The ruling affects hundreds of employees who were terminated during the shutdown and blocks planned layoffs.
The decision represents a major victory for federal worker unions who brought the lawsuit to protect civil servants from what they characterized as politically motivated firings. The American Federation of Government Employees, the American Foreign Service Association, and the National Federation of Federal Employees jointly challenged the administration’s mass terminations.
Judge Illston described the administration’s approach as ready fire aim, indicating that the firings appeared politically motivated and were executed without proper consideration of their legal or human consequences. “This administration’s chaotic and harmful process caused real damage to federal employees and their families,” Illston stated. The judge’s criticism highlighted what she viewed as actions that violated clear congressional protections.
The controversy began during the federal government shutdown, when the administration moved forward with reductions in force across multiple agencies. More than 4,100 workers received reduction-in-force notices affecting employees at the Department of State, the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Education, among other agencies.
When Congress passed a continuing resolution on November 12, 2025, to end the shutdown, the law included specific provisions designed to protect federal workers. The legislation prohibited the government from using federal funds to initiate, carry out, implement, or otherwise notice any reduction in force. Additionally, the law required agencies to roll back any reductions in force that had been proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken during the shutdown.
Despite these clear legal restrictions, the administration attempted to continue the layoffs. Russell Vought, who leads the Office of Management and Budget, issued directives interpreting the law narrowly to permit ongoing terminations. The administration argued that it could complete layoffs that had already been initiated before the continuing resolution took effect, even though the law’s language appeared to prohibit such actions.
The continuing resolution extends government funding through January 30, 2026, and the judge’s order ensures that no further reductions in force can proceed during that period. The ruling specifically blocks the Department of State from implementing 250 terminations that were scheduled to take effect on December 5.
Attorneys representing the federal worker unions argued that Congress had taken extraordinary action to protect civil servants. Danielle Leonard, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, emphasized that Congress had been remarkably clear about its intentions in passing the law. “Congress could not have been more explicit in protecting these workers from arbitrary termination,” Leonard argued. Brad Rosenberg, representing the Justice Department, contended that the law only covered new reduction-in-force notices and did not prevent the completion of termination processes that had begun earlier.
Judge Illston rejected the administration’s interpretation, ruling that the law’s plain language prohibited any continuation of the layoff process.
The unions representing federal workers collectively speak for over 800,000 employees across the government. The case was brought with representation from Democracy Forward and Altshuler Berzon LLP, organizations specializing in protecting workers’ rights and constitutional principles.
The ruling on December 17, 2025, comes after legal battles over the administration’s workforce reduction efforts. Judge Illston had previously issued a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction on October 15, 2025, attempting to halt the firings, though those earlier actions occurred under different legal circumstances before Congress enacted the specific protections in the continuing resolution.
The decision carries significant implications for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. By explicitly enforcing congressional directives that constrain executive branch actions, the court affirmed that the president cannot simply ignore statutory limitations enacted by Congress, even when those restrictions directly conflict with administration policy goals.
For the hundreds of federal workers who lost their jobs during the shutdown, the ruling means they will receive back pay covering the period from their termination through their reinstatement. The financial impact on affected families had been severe, with employees losing their paychecks during the shutdown period.
The chaotic nature of the termination process added to the confusion and harm experienced by federal employees. Some workers received notices that they would not be fired, only to have the government reverse course days later.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between the administration’s stated goal of reducing the size of the federal workforce and legal protections that prevent arbitrary or politically motivated terminations of civil service employees. Federal workers serve in positions ranging from educators and health professionals to diplomats and administrators, performing functions authorized and funded by Congress.
As the continuing resolution approaches its January 30, 2026, expiration date, Congress will face another potential funding deadline. The judge’s order remains in effect through that date, preventing any reductions in force during the current funding period. What happens after that deadline will depend on whether Congress passes new funding legislation and what protections, if any, such legislation includes for federal employees.