A federal court in California has delivered a major setback to President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss thousands of federal workers, turning a previously temporary injunction into a permanent order. The ruling, issued Tuesday by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, blocks the administration from carrying out a large-scale Reduction in Force (RIF) that had already placed thousands of federal employees at risk of losing their jobs.

Union leaders quickly praised the decision. Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), celebrated the ruling as an important safeguard for workers. “Today’s ruling is another victory for federal employees and our ongoing efforts to protect their jobs from an administration hellbent on illegally firing them,” he said.

The conflict stems from comments made by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russel Vought, who said the administration planned to dismiss up to 10,000 federal workers as part of a shutdown-related cost-cutting measure. The plan triggered immediate alarm throughout the federal workforce. Roughly 4,000 employees had already received formal RIF notices, which spurred several unions to file suit in late September, arguing that the administration was acting unlawfully and without the necessary planning or legal authority.

The political backlash was swift. Members of both parties voiced concern over the scale and timing of the proposed layoffs. Two weeks earlier, Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, criticized the firings as “arbitrary,” stressing that federal employees—whether working without pay during a shutdown or furloughed entirely—still perform critical public services.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued his own rebuke, accusing the administration of “callously choosing to hurt people.” Other Democratic lawmakers escalated the criticism further, suggesting the president was acting as though he had unchecked power to dismiss federal workers at will.

Judge Illston’s order blocks a wide range of government actions tied to the RIF plan. The injunction halts implementation of an email from OMB that urged agencies to prepare for sweeping personnel cuts and suspends related guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Illston also directed federal agencies to immediately stop processing the RIF notices that had been issued the previous Friday.

The ruling followed a hearing last week in which Illston hinted strongly that she believed the unions were likely to prevail. During the hearing, she criticized what she described as glaring weaknesses in the government’s planning and estimates, while noting that the administration appeared unprepared to justify the scale of the layoffs.

“It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs,” she said. “And it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

The judge also questioned the political motivations behind the RIF strategy. Although she stopped short of declaring the administration’s actions unconstitutional solely because of political rhetoric, Illston pointed to language in OMB’s internal memo and public comments from the president as evidence that the process had been improperly influenced by partisan goals. She highlighted a social media post from Trump stating that he was meeting with Vought “to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut,” adding that he was surprised Democrats had given him “this unprecedented opportunity.”

“The politics that infuses what’s going on is being trumpeted out loud in this case,” Illston said. “And there are laws which govern how we can do the things that we do—including laws that govern how we do RIFs—and the activities being undertaken here are contrary to the laws.”

The administration, however, pushed back. Department of Justice attorney Elizabeth Hedges argued that the unions had failed to demonstrate that employees would suffer harm warranting emergency relief. According to Hedges, the alleged injuries—such as loss of income or loss of employment—were the sort that federal appeals bodies, particularly the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), could later address.

“We’re still dealing with classically reparable harms,” Hedges said, insisting that the court should dismiss the lawsuit and decline to extend the temporary restraining order.

Despite the government’s arguments, Illston determined that the unions had shown sufficient evidence that the administration’s RIF plan was unlawful, rushed, and procedurally flawed. Her ruling not only freezes the planned dismissals but also signals a broader judicial warning against politically driven attempts to bypass established federal employment protections.

The decision represents a major victory for federal employees—and a significant obstacle for the administration’s broader workforce-restructuring ambitions.