The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned an order by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston that required the Trump administration to disclose agency RIF and reorganization plans (ARRPs). This development is part of a legal battle over President Trump’s February 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to prepare for large-scale layoffs and reorganizations to streamline the federal workforce.
Background
Judge Illston, based in the Northern District of California, had issued a preliminary injunction in May 2025, blocking the implementation of Trump’s executive order, which she argued violated separation of powers principles by initiating large-scale executive branch reorganizations without congressional approval. As part of her oversight, Illston ordered the administration to turn over detailed RIF plans from 17 agencies, which were reportedly ready for implementation, to assess their legality. She rejected the administration’s claim that these plans were protected by deliberative process privilege, stating that at least the final versions of the ARRPs were not shielded and should be disclosed to the court and plaintiffs’ counsel under a protective order.
The Trump administration refused to comply with Illston’s order to produce the RIF list, arguing that the plans were “predecisional” and privileged, and instead moved to dismiss the case. The administration also appealed Illston’s preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit and sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which on July 8, 2025, lifted her injunction, allowing agencies to proceed with RIFs while legal challenges continued.
Appeals Court Decision
On July 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay, effectively blocking Illston’s order to turn over the RIF plans. This ruling meant that federal agencies could move forward with planned layoffs and reorganizations without disclosing the details of their ARRPs to the court or the public. The appeals court’s decision came just before a Wednesday deadline set by Illston for the administration to submit the plans, which included 40 RIF actions across 17 agencies.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling aligned with the Supreme Court’s earlier stance that the administration was likely to succeed in arguing that the executive order itself was lawful. The Supreme Court had emphasized that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency RIF plans, leaving room for further challenges, but the Ninth Circuit’s stay effectively paused Illston’s attempt to force transparency while appeals proceeded.
The appeals court’s stay was a setback, but the plaintiffs, led by groups like the American Federation of Government Employees, continued to push for disclosure, noting that the Supreme Court left open the possibility of challenging individual agency plans.
