Golden Finance reported that on May 30 local time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States, headquartered in San Francisco, made a key ruling, dismissing the Trump administration’s request and refusing to suspend a previous lower court ruling. The lower court ruling explicitly prohibited the Trump administration from advancing large-scale federal employee layoffs and government agency restructuring plans. This outcome is like pouring cold water on the relevant plans of the Trump administration, preventing it from continuing to implement the plan of cutting tens of thousands of federal jobs and closing numerous government agencies and programs at present.
Tracing back to the source of the incident, in February this year, the Trump administration issued an executive order, planning to carry out large-scale layoffs or major reorganizations in multiple federal agencies. This executive order has sparked widespread controversy. Many federal employees’ unions, local governments, and external organizations that rely on federal services have jointly filed a lawsuit in court, arguing that the relevant actions of the Trump administration have exceeded the scope authorized by law.
In this regard, Susan Illston, a senior federal district judge of the United States, ruled in early May that the Trump administration could not proceed with the relevant plan under the executive order and approved a temporary restraining order. The validity period of this temporary restriction order is two weeks. During this period, the government is prohibited from approving or implementing the so-called “Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans” (ARRPs for short). At the same time, suspend the decisions on layoffs or project cuts made by the “Ministry of Government Efficiency” in accordance with this executive order and related instructions.
This time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States rejected the request of the Trump administration and upheld the ruling of the lower court, further highlighting the legal obstacles faced by the Trump administration in the process of advancing the plan. All along, the Trump administration has attempted to reduce the size of the federal government through layoffs and institutional restructuring in order to achieve its goals of improving government efficiency and cutting spending.
As early as February 11th, Trump signed an executive order on cutting federal government staff and instructed various government agencies to cooperate with the “Government Efficiency Department” led by Musk to advance layoffs and restrictions on recruitment. In the following months, multiple federal departments launched layoff plans. For instance, the US State Department instructed its embassies in various countries to lay off staff, and departments such as the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency also successively announced the dismissal of some employees.
However, these large-scale layoffs and institutional restructuring measures have triggered many problems. On the one hand, large-scale layoffs may lead to numerous federal employees losing their jobs, affecting their family livelihoods and triggering social instability factors. On the other hand, the impact of the relevant plans on some key public service departments may affect the performance of the government’s normal functions and bring inconvenience to people’s lives. From a legal perspective, many people believe that the Trump administration’s move is suspected of overstepping its authority and does not comply with relevant US laws and regulations. The ruling of this appellate court also reflects the significant role that the US judicial system plays in balancing executive power and legal norms.
For the Trump administration, this ruling is undoubtedly a major setback. But it is still unknown whether the Trump administration will take further actions, such as appealing to the US Supreme Court. If the Trump administration continues to adhere to the relevant plans, it may face more complex legal games and social public opinion pressure in the future.
For federal employees in the United States and groups that rely on federal services, the ruling of the appellate court has temporarily preserved many jobs and government programs, allowing them to continue performing their duties and enjoying services. Subsequently, the market and all sectors of society will continue to pay close attention to the subsequent developments of the Trump administration on this issue, as well as the long-term impact of this incident on the political landscape and government operation of the United States.
Related Topics:
