WASHINGTON, D.C. (Bloomberg Law) — The end of a moratorium blocking the Trump administration from mass firing federal workers exposes legal obstacles for public-sector labor unions trying to stop further layoffs.
The prohibition, negotiated as part of the November funding deal that ended the last government shutdown, prevented federal agencies from issuing any reductions-in-force through Friday.
Its expiration, coinciding with ongoing funding fights, puts public-sector unions representing federal workers in a bind. They’re likely to prevail—at least temporarily—in a legal challenge against any RIFs issued during a lapse in funding, but attorneys question whether labor organizations can permanently stop the administration unless Congress extends the moratorium.
“Regardless of whether or not the government shuts down, this protection is going to expire on Jan. 30,” said Suzanne Summerlin,an attorney specializing in the federal workforce. “Without renewal of that language or a similar provision, agencies will no longer face a statutory bar on proceeding with layoffs.”
President Donald Trump cut the size of the federal workforce by 219,000 in 2025 through a combination of RIFs, firings of individual federal workers, and offers of extended leave in exchange for resignations. Much of that halted in late November.
The layoffs that the Trump administration attempted during the moratorium, affecting at least 500 workers across the Department of Education, General Services Administration, Small Business Administration, State Department, and the Department of Defense, were temporarily blocked by the US District Court for the Northern District of California in December.
Statutory Challenges
When the moratorium ends after Jan. 30, unions can still challenge federal layoffs as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Their success will ultimately hinge on whether a court finds that the Trump administration followed the requirements stipulated in civil service law, attorneys said.
“If they do this in the appropriate procedural manner, it does remove some of our ability to challenge the RIFs,” said Debra D’Agostino, founding partner at the Federal Practice Group that represents federal workers. “But that doesn’t take away from any of our broader constitutional challenges.”
While a federal judge ruled back in March 2025 that the Trump administration needed congressional approval under the US Constitution to carry out mass reorganizations of federal agencies, the US Supreme Court ultimately paused that decision in July.
Language in the proposed appropriations bills currently before Congress that would require some agencies to maintain adequate staffing levels could also be used as a vehicle to challenge RIFs, attorneys said.
If a federal agency tries to institute a widespread reorganization or mass reduction-in-force, that appropriations language could “show that the basis for the RIF was not proper,” said Michael Fallings, managing partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC.
But that strategy could come with challenges.
In the Northern District of California shutdown layoff case brought by federal workers’ unions, the government had argued it was simply continuing with workforce cuts that began before the shutdown and the subsequent moratorium. This underscores how such agreements rest on the legal interpretations of legislative text—regardless of whether lawmakers extend the moratorium.
Judge Susan Illston paused those RIFs through Jan. 30. The federal government later dropped its appeal of her decision.
