Andrea Hsu
👤 SpeakerAppearances Over Time
Podcast Appearances
The judge overseeing the case has now told the government it must halt layoffs of federal employees who were part of bargaining units the administration no longer recognizes
as well as those who remain union members.
The judge also clarified that her order applies to layoffs conducted since October 1st, whether the government says they're related to the shutdown or not.
There will be another hearing on October 28th when the judge will consider indefinitely pausing the layoffs.
Now, temporary restraining orders are meant to be stopgap measures.
They're not generally appealable, but that hasn't stopped the Trump administration in the past.
So we can expect the administration to fight this pause all the way to the Supreme Court if it has to.
Already, the Supreme Court has signaled a willingness to side with the government in cases about the fate of federal employees.
District Judge Susan Ilsten said the unions are likely to prove that the Trump administration acted illegally in firing employees during the shutdown.
She ordered a pause to the layoffs already underway and a halt to any new layoffs until a second hearing on October 28th.
The government's attorney, Elizabeth Hedges, argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and that the restraining order is not warranted because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm.
Ilston did not find those arguments compelling and instead pressed Hedges to explain why the government believes the layoffs are legal.
Hedges declined, saying she was not prepared to discuss the government's position on the merits at this time.
District Judge Susan Ilsten said the unions are likely to prove that the Trump administration acted illegally in firing employees during the shutdown.
She ordered a pause to the layoffs already underway and a halt to any new layoffs until a second hearing on October 28th.
The government's attorney, Elizabeth Hedges, argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and that the restraining order is not warranted because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm.