Case: American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump

3:25-cv-03698 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: April 28, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 28, 2025, the American Federation of Government Employees and several other labor organizations, nonprofits, and cities/counties filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. They named President Donald Trump and numerous federal departments and agencies and their agency heads as Defendants. The Plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 14210, which ordered agencies across the federal government to engage in a radical transformation of the …

On April 28, 2025, the American Federation of Government Employees and several other labor organizations, nonprofits, and cities/counties filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. They named President Donald Trump and numerous federal departments and agencies and their agency heads as Defendants. The Plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 14210, which ordered agencies across the federal government to engage in a radical transformation of the federal bureaucracy, including by conducting large-scale Reductions in Force (RIFs), without Congressional authorization. They challenged the executive order and implementing memoranda under the Separation of Powers and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The case was assigned to Judge Susan Illston. On May 1, 2025, plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order. After a hearing on May 9, 2025, Judge Illston granted a 14-day temporary restraining order, applicable to the following department:  OMB, OPM, DOGE, USDA, Commerce, Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation, VA, AmeriCorps, EPA, GSA, NLRB, NSF, SBA, and SSA. 782 F.Supp.3d 793. The order paused any further reductions in force and compelled speedy limited discovery. 

The government immediately filed an appeal, and sought a stay pending appellate litigation.  The district court declined to enter a stay, and the 9th Circuit set a schedule for briefing to proceed through May 22 (the day before the TRO is set to expire unless extended).  On May 16, the government asked the Supreme Court to grant a stay. 

Back in the district court, after briefing, on May 22, 2025, Judge Illston granted a preliminary injunction, barring the challenged government actions during the pendency of the litigation. 784 F.Supp.3d 1316. Following the lead of numerous other courts, Judge Illston rejected the arguement that the agencies were acting of their own accord and were not directed by OMB. Judge Illston held the President would exceed his authority by dismantling programs authorized by Congress. The court reasoned that the dramatic staff reductions will render the agencies unable to do what Congress directs the agencies to do. In light of the evidence, Judge Illston held that the plaintiff's were likely to succeed in their claims that the defendants exceeded their statutory and constitutional authority. American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, F. Supp. 3d, 2025 WL 1358477 (N.D. Cal. 2025). The government filled an appeal and a motion for a stay pending appeal with the 9th Circuit, on May 23.  (This mooted the request for a stay of the TRO pending before the Supreme Court, so the government withdrew that request.)

On May 30, 2025, the 9th Circuit denied a stay of the preliminary injunction, holding in a published opinion by Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher (joined by Circuit Judge Lucy H. Koh) that  "the government does not 'suffer by a temporary preservation of the status quo,'" and was likely to lose the case. 139 F.4th 1020. First looking at jurisdiction, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims were not appropriately channeled through the comprehensive administrative system established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), because the CSRA did not give any administrative tribunal the authority to address broad challenges to the defendants' constitutional and statutory authority to direct large-scale federal reorganizations and reductions in force.  On the merits, the court found that neither the Constitution nor any federal statute grants the President the authority to direct the kind of large-scale reorganization of the federal government at issue, noting that the challenged RIFs appear "inextricably intertwined with broad agency reorganization, which the president undoubtedly cannot undertake without Congress." American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, F. 4th, 2025 WL 1541714 (9th Cir. 2025).

A dissent by Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan countered that Article II of the Constitution vests the President with sufficient authority to cover the challenged conduct.  Judge Callahan dissented that the Executive Order and memorandum merely directed agencies to exercise their own lawful statutory authority and that the district court erred by not finding whether specific RIFs would violate statutory mandates or eliminate agencies.  

The government filed a Supreme Court application for a stay on June 2, 2025. The stay application was presented to Justice Kagan. On July 8, the Court granted the stay of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pending the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court reasoned that the executive order and implementing memoranda themselves were likely legal as they only direct agencies to plan reorganizations in force "consistent with applicable law.". The Court declined to express a view on the legality of the Agency RIF or Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan (ARRPs) saying that it was outside the scope of the question in front of them.

Justice Jackson dissented from grant of application for stay. She argued that the Court made this determination outside of the facts and evidence necessary to "responsibly override, reasoned lower court fact-finding." Justice Jackson pointed to the District Court's preliminary findings (which were based "on actual evidence") and argued that the Supreme Court should have declined to intervene. The Court resting the granting of the stay on the merits of the case was inappropriate because the District Court issued an injunction based on the facts collected. She further argued that the executive order and memorandum themselves were unconstitutional executive action that does not "rest on any grant of reorganization authority by Congress."

In response to the stay by the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs asked Judge Illston to reconsider the plaintiffs' request that the government turn over the specific agency proposals for reductions-in-force (RIFs). The government asserted that these documents were protected by the deliberative process privilege. However, Judge Illston rejected this argument, finding that the documents were "likely not pre-decisional and deliberative documents." Judge Illston then ordered the government to respond to the plaintiffs' request by July 14, 2025.

The plaintiffs moved for an order shortening the government's time to respond to the discovery request for the RIFs and AARPs (from the standard 30 days to 14 days). The government responded by saying that all the plaintiffs' claim were APA claims and thus, there is no basis for any discovery in the adjudication of those claims.

On July 15, the government moved for a protective order and/or to quash the plaintiffs' request for production of documents. The motion consisted of seven major claims:

  1. Discovery is premature because the government still had not responded to the complaint and was planning on moving to dismiss the complaint. The government requested the court rule on the forthcoming motion first before the request for discovery.
  2. The government reiterated that it would be inappropriate to grant discovery in the adjudication of an APA claim, particularly before an administrative record is certified.
  3. The requested information is not relevant in light of the stay by the Supreme Court.
  4. DOGE and United States DOGE services are not agencies that can be sued subject to the APA. The discovery sought against them is without basis.
  5. The Request for Production (RFP) 1 seeks documents that should be protected by deliberative process privilege.
  6. The plaintiffs' demand for application for waivers of RIF notice periods and all responses by OMB or OPM to those applications are not relevant to the issues before the court.
  7. The discovery sought by the plaintiffs is outside the scope of relief the court could grant. The court cannot review the lawfulness of the ARRPs because they are not final agency actions under the APA.

Judge Illston granted this motion in part and denied it in part on July 18. The court reject the government's assertion that the Supreme Court's stay "ends this case" because the stay did not reach several claims in the amended complaint. The Supreme Court's decision did not foreclose considerations of the legality of the ARRPs ("In a concurrence, Justice Sotomayor noted that the Supreme Court's decision allows the district court to consider the legality of the ARRPs in the 'first instance.'") Judge Illston reiterated that a full review of the ARRPs would "significantly aid the Court's review of the merits of these APA claims." Judge Illston rejected the government's argument that the plaintiffs never challenged any of the ARRPs as being arbitrary and capricious. She argued that the defendants are " [arguing] essentially that plaintiffs cannot prove their case because plaintiffs do not have the ARRPs because the ARRPs have not been made public." Judge Illston held that the Ninth Circuit has consistently recognized "narrow exceptions" to the general rule that the reviewal of APA claims are limited to the administrative record. Finally, the court held that even if some material within the ARRPs should be protected by deliberative process privilege, "the need for accurate fact finding overrides the government's interest in non-disclosure."

However, at this point, Judge Illston limited the distribution of the ARRPs to the plaintiffs' counsel and the court. The court also allowed the defendants to redact any material addressing union negotiating strategy to the plaintiffs' counsel. The government was ordered to provide the full version to the court and to highlight any redacted material.

The government filed two motions on July 21: a motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The government alleged that in light of the Supreme Court's decision, all the plaintiff's claims fail. This is due to the fact that all the claims in the amended complaint "depend on the assertion that the Workforce Executive Order, the Workforce Memorandum, or both are unlawful." Further, the government alleged that to the extent the complaint challenges the ARPs, the ARPs are not final agency actions subject to review under the APA. The government complains that the allegations regarding the RIFs and the ARPs are speculation about future actions the government will take. In regards to the jurisdiction arguments, the government argued that challenges to the lawfulness of federal agency personnel action are precluded from district court review. The government reasserted its claim that the complaint be dismissed as to DOGE which is an initiative and not an agency that can be sued.

On July 21, 2025, the government filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking review of the court's July 18 discovery order. The district court released a statement in response to augment the appellate record. Judge Illston noted that in the government's application for a stay from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General represented that 40 RIFs in 17 agencies were in progress and enjoined. However, in response to the discovery order, the petitioners produced a list of those represented RIFs, and numerous agencies that were not defendants in the case (and therefore, not enjoined by the preliminary injunction) were included in the figure presented to the Supreme Court. Judge Illston highlighted that this is no insignificant discrepancy and she reasserted her previous finding that "any deliberative process privilege. . .is overridden by 'the need for accurate fact-finding in this litigation.'"

Judge Illston denied the plaintiffs' request for an order requiring production of the administrative record. The court found that much of the information plaintiffs sought from an administrative record overlapped with other discovery requests that plaintiffs issued and on which the court had already ruled. The court suggested the plaintiffs clarify some of their APA claims to give the government a more "specific understanding of the challenged final agency actions" so that the government can be "expected to produce an administrative record for those actions."

On September 9, 2025, Judge Illston granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim against DOGE on grounds that plaintiffs did not properly name DOGE in their complaint. The Court dismissed the DOGE claims without prejudice and noted that if the plaintiffs refiled a complaint that properly named DOGE as the U.S. DOGE service, the claims could proceed.

On September 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied the government's writ of mandamus. The Court noted that the District Court did not make a "clear error" in granting Plaintiffs discovery request for ARRPs. This factor was dispositive in denying the writ of mandamus.

Also on September 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court for three reasons. First, the Ninth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the District Court's injunction pending review on appeal and certiorari, making some delay inevitable. Second, the District Court's preliminary injunction was granted before the Supreme Court limited the ability of U.S. District Courts to issue nationwide injunctions in Trump v. Casa. Third, remand would allow the District Court to evaluate the suit in light of the government's actions after the now-stayed injunction was issued.

On October 4, 2025, Judge Illston denied the government's motion to stay the case pending the end of the government shutdown.

This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Scott Shuchart (5/7/2025)

Clearinghouse (6/4/2025)

Jinan Abufarha (7/9/2025)

Nick Martire (9/21/2025)

Related Cases

American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Northern District of California (2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70353532/parties/american-federation-of-government-employees-afl-cio-et-al-v-trump-et/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Alarcon, Molly J. (California)

Attorney, Corinne Johnson,

Attorney, Stacey Leyton,

Attorney, Danielle Leonard,

Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Attorney, Amy Tu

Attorney for Plaintiff

Alarcon, Molly J. (California)

Attorney, Corinne Johnson,

Attorney, Stacey Leyton,

Attorney, Danielle Leonard,

Attorney, Robin Starr

Attorney, Sara J.

Bhat, Simi (California)

Blumin, Matthew Stark (California)

Chisholm, Barbara Jane (California)

Counsel, Alison Chinn

Counsel, Mr. Rushab

Desormeau, Katherine K (California)

Eisen, Norman Larry (California)

Eisenberg, Sara Jennifer (California)

Fombonne, Jonathan (California)

Godbey, Hannah Mae (California)

Godbey, Ms. Hannah

Goldstein, Elena (California)

Goodman, Jacob (California)

Habig, Jill Ellen (California)

Hackett, David J (California)

Hackett, Mr. David

Hirsch, Rebecca (California)

Holcomb, Alison Chinn (California)

Holtzman, Mr. Alexander

Holtzman, Alexander Justin (California)

Hoshijima, Tsuki (California)

Johnson, Meredith Anne (California)

Johnson, Corinne F (California)

Jr, Robert Chan (California)

Keiser, Alex (California)

King-Clancy, Erin (California)

Klein, Spencer W. (California)

Kovacs-Goodman, Jacob (California)

Lee, Mollie M (California)

Leonard, Danielle Evelyn (California)

Leyton, Stacey M. (California)

LoPresti, Tony

LoPresti, Anthony J (California)

Mere, Yvonne Rosil (California)

Mere, Ms. Yvonne

Mohan, Sharanya (California)

Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California)

Newland, Erica (California)

Perryman, Skye L. (California)

Prather, Lucy (California)

Pruski, Jacek (California)

Rajendra, Mr. Raphael

Rajendra, Raphael N. (California)

Sanghvi, Rushab (California)

Schaffer-Neitz, Aaron (California)

Tholin, Robin Starr (California)

Torti, Julia (California)

Wang, Alice X (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

3:25-cv-03698

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO v. Trump

April 28, 2025

April 28, 2025

Complaint
85

3:25-cv-03698

Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Compelling Certain Discovery Production

May 9, 2025

May 9, 2025

Order/Opinion

782 F.Supp.3d 793

85

3:25-cv-03698

Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Compelling Certain Discovery Production

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

May 9, 2025

May 9, 2025

Order/Opinion
5-1

25-03030

Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 For Stay Pending Appeal/Petition For Writ of Mandamus

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

May 12, 2025

May 12, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
6

25-03030

Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

May 12, 2025

May 12, 2025

Other
5-2

25-03030

Addendum to Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal/Petition for Writ of Mandamus

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

May 12, 2025

May 12, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
101-1

3:25-cv-03698

Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

May 14, 2025

May 14, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
117

3:25-cv-03698

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
120

3:25-cv-03698

Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

May 20, 2025

May 20, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
124

3:25-cv-03698

Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

Order/Opinion

786 F.Supp.3d 1316

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70353532/american-federation-of-government-employees-afl-cio-et-al-v-trump-et/

Last updated Dec. 3, 2025, 1:36 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:25-cv-03698-SI has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-3293 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct.  It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for attorneys and pro se litigants) and review the Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider contacting the court's Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 05/23/2025 08:02 AM]

May 23, 2025

May 23, 2025

2

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 5/28/2025, Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 6/20/2025, Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 7/18/2025. For appeal no. 25-3293, 3:25-cv-03698-SI.All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 05/23/2025 08:05 AM]

May 23, 2025

May 23, 2025

3

Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. [Entered: 05/23/2025 01:16 PM]

May 23, 2025

May 23, 2025

4

MOTION to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings/Order/Judgment filed by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. [Entered: 05/23/2025 01:18 PM]

1 Motion

View on RECAP

2 Motion

View on PACER

May 23, 2025

May 23, 2025

5

ORDER FILED. The response to the supplemental emergency motion is due by 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time on May 27, 2025. The optional reply is due by 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time on May 29, 2025. [25-3030, 25-3034, 25-3293] [Entered: 05/24/2025 01:04 PM]

May 24, 2025

May 24, 2025

RECAP
6

MOTION to Accept Oversized Document Other than a Brief filed by Appellee American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1122, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1236, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 2110, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 3172, Appellee Alliance for Retired Americans, Appellee American Geophysical Union, Appellee American Public Health Association, Appellee Center for Taxpayer Rights, Appellee Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Appellee Common Defense Civic Engagement. [Entered: 05/27/2025 09:31 AM]

1 Motion

View on PACER

2 Declaration

View on PACER

May 27, 2025

May 27, 2025

7

RESPONSE to Motion to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings, Order, or Judgment (DE 4) filed by Appellee American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee Service Employees International Union, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1122, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1236, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 2110, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 3172, Appellee Service Employees International Union - Local 1000, Appellee Alliance for Retired Americans, Appellee American Geophysical Union, Appellee American Public Health Association, Appellee Center for Taxpayer Rights, Appellee Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Appellee Common Defense Civic Engagement, Appellee Main Street Alliance, Appellee Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Appellee Northeast Organic Farming Association, Inc., Appellee VoteVets Action Fund, Inc., Appellee Western Watersheds Project. [Entered: 05/27/2025 09:36 AM]

1 Response

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit

View on RECAP

May 27, 2025

May 27, 2025

8

REPLY to Response to Motion to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings, Order, or Judgment (DE 4) filed by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. [Entered: 05/29/2025 08:48 AM]

May 29, 2025

May 29, 2025

RECAP
9

ORDER FILED. The motions (Docket Entry Nos. 10, 21, 33 in 25-3030; Docket Entry Nos. 10, 16 in 25-3034) for leave to file amicus curiae briefs related to the emergency stay motion are granted. The motion (Docket Entry No. 37 in 25-3030; Docket Entry No. 31 in 25-3034; Docket Entry No. 6 in 25-3293) for leave to file an oversized response to the emergency stay motion is granted. [25-3030, 25-3034, 25-3293] [Entered: 05/30/2025 09:55 AM]

May 30, 2025

May 30, 2025

RECAP
10

ORDER FILED FOR PUBLICATION. (William A. Fletcher, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Lucy H. Koh) [SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT] For the foregoing reasons, we deny Defendants’ emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Order by Judge W. Fletcher; Dissent by Judge Callahan. [Entered: 05/30/2025 04:47 PM]

May 30, 2025

May 30, 2025

Clearinghouse
11

UPDATED ORDER FOR PUBLICATION FILED. (William A. Fletcher, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Lucy H. Koh) Update: Attached formatted order for publication. [Entered: 06/10/2025 09:18 AM]

June 10, 2025

June 10, 2025

RECAP
12

OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. [Entered: 06/20/2025 02:02 PM]

June 20, 2025

June 20, 2025

RECAP
13

EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. [Entered: 06/20/2025 02:11 PM]

June 20, 2025

June 20, 2025

14

ORDER FILED. Opening Brief submitted at DE 12 by appellants is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Appellants must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with blue front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The excerpts of record submitted at DE 13 by Appellants are filed. Within 7 days of this order, Appellants must file 3 copies of the excerpts in paper format securely bound on the left side, with white front covers. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerk’s principal office.  [Entered: 06/20/2025 04:05 PM]

June 20, 2025

June 20, 2025

15

6 Paper copies of Opening Brief submitted at DE 12 by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano received. [Entered: 06/24/2025 10:25 AM]

June 24, 2025

June 24, 2025

16

3 Paper copies of Excerpts of Record in 3 Volumes and Index Volume submitted at DE 13 by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano received.  [Entered: 06/24/2025 10:27 AM]

June 24, 2025

June 24, 2025

17

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Courtney Dixon for Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Frank Bisignano, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant William Cowen. [Entered: 06/26/2025 09:50 AM]

June 26, 2025

June 26, 2025

18

ADDED Counsel for Appellant Courtney Dixon [Entered: 06/26/2025 10:07 AM]

June 26, 2025

June 26, 2025

19

Supreme Court Letter Received. [Entered: 07/08/2025 01:19 PM]

July 8, 2025

July 8, 2025

RECAP
20

MOTION to Extend Time to File Brief filed by Appellee American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee Service Employees International Union, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1122, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1236, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 2110, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 3172, Appellee Service Employees International Union - Local 1000, Appellee Alliance for Retired Americans, Appellee American Geophysical Union, Appellee American Public Health Association, Appellee Center for Taxpayer Rights, Appellee Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Appellee Common Defense Civic Engagement, Appellee Main Street Alliance, Appellee Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Appellee Northeast Organic Farming Association, Inc., Appellee VoteVets Action Fund, Inc., Appellee Western Watersheds Project. [Entered: 07/11/2025 10:51 AM]

July 11, 2025

July 11, 2025

21

ORDER FILED. The motion (Docket Entry No. 20) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due August 1, 2025. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 07/15/2025 02:39 PM]

July 15, 2025

July 15, 2025

22

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Alison Chinn Holcomb for Appellee County of Martin Luther King, Jr.,. [Entered: 07/16/2025 10:25 AM]

July 16, 2025

July 16, 2025

23

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Alison Chinn Holcomb for Appellee County of Martin Luther King, Jr.,. [Entered: 07/16/2025 10:38 AM]

July 16, 2025

July 16, 2025

24

ADDED Counsel for Appellee Alison Chinn Holcomb [Entered: 07/16/2025 10:46 AM]

July 16, 2025

July 16, 2025

25

MOTION to Extend Time to File Brief filed by Appellee American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee Service Employees International Union, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1122, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1236, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 2110, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 3172, Appellee Service Employees International Union - Local 1000, Appellee Alliance for Retired Americans, Appellee American Geophysical Union, Appellee American Public Health Association, Appellee Center for Taxpayer Rights, Appellee Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Appellee Common Defense Civic Engagement, Appellee Main Street Alliance, Appellee Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Appellee Northeast Organic Farming Association, Inc., Appellee VoteVets Action Fund, Inc., Appellee Western Watersheds Project. [Entered: 07/23/2025 05:27 PM]

1

View on RECAP

July 23, 2025

July 23, 2025

26

TEXT CLERK ORDER. The motion for an extension of time to file the answering brief (DE 25), is granted. [Entered: 07/24/2025 02:36 PM]

July 24, 2025

July 24, 2025

27

MOTION to Remand filed by Appellee American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee Service Employees International Union, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1122, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1236, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 2110, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 3172, Appellee Service Employees International Union - Local 1000, Appellee Alliance for Retired Americans, Appellee American Geophysical Union, Appellee American Public Health Association, Appellee Center for Taxpayer Rights, Appellee Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Appellee Common Defense Civic Engagement, Appellee Main Street Alliance, Appellee Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Appellee Northeast Organic Farming Association, Inc., Appellee VoteVets Action Fund, Inc., Appellee Western Watersheds Project. [Entered: 08/05/2025 02:33 PM]

Aug. 5, 2025

Aug. 5, 2025

28

ORDER FILED. William A. FLETCHER, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Sandra S. IKUTA On August 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which the government opposes. Mot. Remand 3, Dkt. No. 27. The government’s response to the motion to remand is due August 13, 2025 at 12:00 P.M. PDT. [Entered: 08/11/2025 01:55 PM]

Aug. 11, 2025

Aug. 11, 2025

29

RESPONSE to Motion to Remand (DE 27) filed by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant United States Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. [Entered: 08/13/2025 08:15 AM]

Aug. 13, 2025

Aug. 13, 2025

30

ORDER FILED. William A. FLETCHER, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Sandra S. IKUTA The court will hear oral argument in these cases on August 21, 2025, at 10:00 A.M. PDT. Each side shall have 30 minutes for argument. The hearing will be conducted remotely, with judges and counsel appearing by video. The parties should be prepared to discuss the following: 1. The government’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Dkt. No. 1, No. 25-4476. 2. The government’s emergency motion for a stay pending consideration of the mandamus petition. Dkt. No. 1, No. 25-4476. 3. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Dkt. No. 27, No. 25-3293. [25-3293, 25-4476] [Entered: 08/18/2025 12:53 PM]

Aug. 18, 2025

Aug. 18, 2025

31

NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Thursday, August 21, 2025 - 10:00 A.M. - Courtroom 2 - Scheduled Location: San Francisco CA View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you are expected to appear in person at the Courthouse. If an in person appearance would pose a hardship, you must file a motion for permission to appear remotely by video, using ACMS filing type Motion to Appear Remotely for Oral Argument. Such a motion must be filed within 7 days of this notice, absent exigent circumstances. Everyone appearing in person must review and comply with our Protocols for In Person Hearings, available here. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you directly at least two weeks before the set argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for a remote appearance that has been approved or directed by the panel. Please note that if you do file a motion to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to justify that request in your motion and receive explicit permission to do so. Be sure to review the GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [25-3293] [Entered: 08/18/2025 05:01 PM]

Aug. 18, 2025

Aug. 18, 2025

32

ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by Maxwell A. Baldi for Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant United States Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. Hearing in San Francisco - Courtroom 2 in San Francisco, on 8/21/2025 10:00:00 AM. Filer argument time: By myself. (Argument minutes: [-]). Special accommodations: No. Filer admission status:  I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court.  [Entered: 08/19/2025 06:54 AM]

Aug. 19, 2025

Aug. 19, 2025

33

ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by Stacey Leyton for Appellee American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Appellee Service Employees International Union, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1122, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 1236, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 2110, Appellee American Federation of Government Employees - Local 3172, Appellee Service Employees International Union - Local 1000, Appellee Alliance for Retired Americans, Appellee American Geophysical Union, Appellee American Public Health Association, Appellee Center for Taxpayer Rights, Appellee Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Appellee Common Defense Civic Engagement, Appellee Main Street Alliance, Appellee Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Appellee Northeast Organic Farming Association, Inc., Appellee VoteVets Action Fund, Inc., Appellee Western Watersheds Project. Hearing in San Francisco - Courtroom 2 in San Francisco, on 8/21/2025 10:00:00 AM. Filer argument time: By myself. (Argument minutes: [-]). Special accommodations: No. Filer admission status:  I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court.  [Entered: 08/19/2025 03:44 PM]

Aug. 19, 2025

Aug. 19, 2025

34

CITATION of Supplemental Authorities (28j Letter) filed by Appellant Donald J. Trump, Appellant United States Office of Management and Budget, Appellant Russell Vought, Appellant United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant Charles Ezell, Appellant United States Department of Government Efficiency, Appellant Elon Musk, Appellant Amy Gleason, Appellant United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Brooke Rollins, Appellant United States Department of Commerce, Appellant Howard Lutnick, Appellant United States Department of Defense, Appellant Peter Hegseth, Appellant United States Department of Energy, Appellant Chris Wright, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Appellant United States Department of Homeland Security, Appellant Kristi Noem, Appellant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Appellant Scott Turner, Appellant DOJ - United States Department of Justice, Appellant Pamela Bondi, Appellant United States Department of the Interior, Appellant Doug Burgum, Appellant United States Department of Labor, Appellant Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Appellant United States Department of State, Appellant Marco Rubio, Appellant United States Department of the Treasury, Appellant Scott Bessent, Appellant United States Department of Transportation, Appellant Sean Duffy, Appellant United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellant Doug Collins, Appellant AmeriCorps, Appellant Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appellant Lee Zeldin, Appellant United States General Services Administration, Appellant Stephen Ehikian, Appellant National Labor Relations Board, Appellant Marvin E. Kaplan, Appellant William Cowen, Appellant National Science Foundation, Appellant Brian Stone, Appellant United States Small Business Administration, Appellant Kelly Loeffler, Appellant Social Security Administration, Appellant Frank Bisignano. [Entered: 09/10/2025 02:18 PM]

Sept. 10, 2025

Sept. 10, 2025

RECAP
35

ORDER FOR PUBLICATION FILED. (William A. FLETCHER, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Sandra S. IKUTA) (Order by Judge W. Fletcher; Partial Dissent by Judge Ikuta).  [SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT] We DENY the petition for writ of mandamus in Trump v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 25-4476.  We VACATE AND REMAND in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, No. 25-3293. [Entered: 09/19/2025 12:19 PM]

1 Chambers Order for Publication (Dispositive)

View on RECAP

Sept. 19, 2025

Sept. 19, 2025

36

CORRECTED ORDER FOR PUBLICATION FILED. (William A. FLETCHER, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Sandra S. IKUTA) CORRECTION: Typo on page 19 corrected.  [Entered: 09/19/2025 12:53 PM]

Sept. 19, 2025

Sept. 19, 2025

Clearinghouse
37

UPDATED ORDER FOR PUBLICATION FILED. (William A. FLETCHER, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Sandra S. IKUTA) Attached reformatted order. [Entered: 09/23/2025 03:15 PM]

Sept. 23, 2025

Sept. 23, 2025

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 28, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Unions, union locals, nonprofits, and several cities/counties

Attorney Organizations:

Democracy Forward

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Office of Management and Budget, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Separation of Powers

Take Care Clause

Other Dockets:

Northern District of California 3:25-cv-03698

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-03030

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-03034

Supreme Court of the United States 24-A-01106

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-03293

Supreme Court of the United States 24-A-01174

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General/Misc.:

Government services

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:

Civil Service

DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)