Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In early 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing a “critical transformation” of the federal government, including workforce reductions. USDA announced a reorganization plan in summer 2025 to close offices and relocate employees across eight components, including the Forest Service, Food and Nutrition Administration, and Research, Education, and Economics mission area. Congress responded by funding USDA above FY2025 levels and enacting appropriations riders—specifically Section 716(a) of the Agriculture appropriations act and Section 421 of the Interior/Environment appropriations act—that prohibited USDA from “reprogramming” funds for office closures, employee relocations, or reorganizations without advance notification and approval from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These restrictions were extended through December 11, 2026, via a Continuing Resolution. Despite these restrictions and without committee approval, USDA notified Congress of its plans and began implementation, sending mandatory relocation letters to employees at several components and initiating collective bargaining over relocation impacts. Unions representing USDA employees, joined by local governments and nonprofits, sued to enjoin the reorganization, arguing it violated the appropriations restrictions and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705, enjoining USDA from closing offices and relocating employees outside local commuting areas across all eight challenged components. The court held that USDA’s spending on reorganization constitutes “reprogramming” under both Section 716(a) and Section 421 because the activities deviate from the purposes Congress contemplated at the time of appropriation. The committee-approval clauses in both provisions are unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha, but the proper severance retains the substantive prohibitions rather than converting them into blanket permission to reorganize. The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, face irreparable harm from job loss and disruption to critical programs (SNAP, WIC, wildfire prevention), and that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction. The court rejected USDA’s argument that relief should be limited to union-represented employees, holding that Section 705 authorizes universal preliminary relief in APA cases to preserve the court’s ability to grant final vacatur under Section 706. The stay applies to all employees in the affected components, with limited exceptions for intra-National Capital Region moves and voluntary competitive selections.
Key Takeaways
- USDA’s office closures and employee relocations constitute prohibited ‘reprogramming’ under Sections 716(a) and 421 because Congress did not contemplate such reorganization when appropriating funds.
- The committee-approval ‘escape hatches’ in both provisions are unconstitutional legislative vetoes; proper severance retains the substantive prohibitions on reorganization, not the notification requirements.
- Congress’s repeated strengthening of reorganization restrictions—from notice-only to notice-and-approval—demonstrates intent to restrict, not authorize, USDA’s unilateral reorganization authority.
- Section 705 of the APA authorizes universal preliminary relief (staying agency action entirely) to preserve the court’s ability to grant final vacatur under Section 706, notwithstanding Trump v. CASA, Inc.’s limits on universal injunctions in non-APA cases.
- The stay expires December 11, 2026, when the appropriations restrictions lapse; USDA may seek congressional authorization for reorganization in the next funding cycle.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Congress’s power of the purse by enforcing appropriations riders that restrict agency reorganization absent legislative approval. It clarifies that unconstitutional committee-approval provisions in appropriations statutes should be severed to retain substantive spending prohibitions, not to grant agencies blanket authority. The ruling also establishes that Section 705 authorizes broad preliminary relief in APA cases to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication, ensuring that agencies cannot moot judicial review by completing unlawful actions before litigation concludes. The practical effect halts a major USDA restructuring affecting thousands of employees and critical nutrition and forestry programs until Congress reauthorizes or modifies the restrictions in the next appropriations cycle. The order is preliminary, not a final merits judgment. Its operative relief contains detailed component-specific limits and exceptions, and it requires employee notice within two business days and a compliance declaration within seven business days. The funding restrictions then in force were scheduled to expire on December 11, 2026, which bounded the immediate practical effect.