Supreme Court RIF Decisions

Since early 2017, the administration announced initiatives to restructure the federal workforce, including potential large-scale reductions in force (RIFs). This has led to sweeping legal battles over the limits of executive power, the role of federal agencies, and the protections available to federal employees.

‍

In three separate challenges to the Trump administration’s RIFs, the Supreme Court on its emergency docket has intervened to block lower-court rulings that either required the reinstatement of employees or prohibited agencies from carrying out firings.

‍

Following these Supreme Court RIF rulings, the cases returned to lower courts, where litigation is still ongoing. In at least two of the cases, even though proceedings remained at the preliminary stage, the government was able to move forward with reductions in force once the Supreme Court lifted the injunctions.

‍

OPM v. AFGE

‍

In Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees, the Supreme Court RIF decision blocked an order from a federal judge in San Francisco that had required the government to reinstate over 16,000 newly hired employees fired from six agencies including the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior, and the Treasury.

‍

The lawsuit, filed in February, came from nonprofits, government-employee unions, and local governments. They argued that the sweeping reductions in force amounted to a “radical transformation” of the federal workforce, exceeding the President’s constitutional powers. They also challenged OPM’s authority, arguing that it did not have the power to direct other agencies to implement mass RIFs.

‍

Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup agreed. In mid-March, he issued a preliminary injunction ordering agencies to reinstate the 16,000 probationary employees who had been fired. These were employees still within their probationary period, typically less than a year into service.

On March 24, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to block Alsup’s ruling. On April 8, the Supreme Court granted the stay, explaining that the nonprofits lacked legal standing to sue and pointing out Alsup’s own doubts about his jurisdiction over union claims.

‍

A few weeks later, on April 18, Alsup issued a second preliminary injunction. This time, he recognised that government-employee unions did have standing. He prohibited OPM from ordering agencies to fire employees, blocked agencies from using OPM’s standard form letters for RIF notices, and required that employees who were already terminated receive letters confirming that their removal was not performance-related.

‍

Alsup clarified that the need for mass reinstatement had diminished because OPM had already revised its January 20 directive, shifting responsibility back to individual agencies. “If any reinstated employees are now terminated (yet again),” Alsup noted, “it will be because the agency has made the decision to do so, not because OPM directed it.”

‍

The Trump administration appealed both of Alsup’s injunctions, and oral arguments were heard by the appeals court on August 19.

‍

Even after Alsup issued a second injunction, clarifying OPM’s role, the administration appealed and many employees were again left unsure whether their jobs were safe.

Actionable Guidance for Employees:

• If you receive a RIF notice, you may wish to review your placement on the agency’s retention register and confirm whether standard rules were applied. Employees typically have rights to appeal under OPM regulations, and agency HR offices can provide more information.
  
  
• Keep documentation of all communications and notices it will matter if you need to appeal.

‍

You should read - dod rif 2025​

‍

Trump v. AFGE

‍

In Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, the Supreme Court again stepped in, this time to pause a ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. Illston had issued a preliminary injunction on May 22 blocking Trump’s executive order that sought mass RIFs across 22 agencies. She also required the administration to turn over documents detailing its RIF plans.

‍

Eight days later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s emergency request to overturn her order. But on July 8, the Supreme Court stayed Illston’s injunction, effectively freeing the administration to continue with RIF implementation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticising the Court’s willingness to permit “legally dubious actions” in an emergency posture.

‍

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred but emphasised that the Court had not decided on the legality of any specific RIF. Instead, she pointed out that Judge Illston retained authority to evaluate whether future RIFs violated the law.

‍

On July 14, the administration declared that the Supreme Court’s ruling “effectively ends this case,” signalling an intent to dismiss. But Judge Illston disagreed. On July 18, she ordered the government to provide challengers with confidential copies of RIF and reorganisation plans. She also directed the administration to file a list of the 40 RIFs at 17 agencies that were previously blocked.

‍

The government then appealed again. On July 23, the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay of Illston’s order, giving the court more time to review the matter. During an August 21 hearing, a government attorney admitted that “some RIF notices have been sent out” after the Supreme Court’s intervention but could not specify how many.

Illston has scheduled a hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss for September 12.

‍

For Employees Facing RIFs:

• Understand that lifting an injunction does not mean the RIF is lawful. It only means the case is still under review.
  
  
• Use your appeal rights under OPM regulations if you believe your RIF was mishandled.
  
  

From a retirement and benefits planning perspective, some employees consider options such as early retirement or Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP). The suitability of these choices depends on individual circumstances and should be reviewed with a qualified financial and HR professional

‍

McMahon v. New York

‍

The third major case, McMahon v. New York, involved the Department of Education’s decision to terminate nearly 1,400 employees. The move was part of Secretary Linda McMahon’s broader plan to downsize and restructure the department.

‍

Two lawsuits were filed in March one by 19 states led by New York, and another by public school districts and teachers’ unions. Both challenged not only the RIF but also McMahon’s larger effort to dismantle the department.

‍

On May 22, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the Department of Education to reinstate the terminated employees and blocking further restructuring efforts. The First Circuit declined to freeze Joun’s injunction pending appeal.

‍

The Trump administration turned to the Supreme Court. On June 6, it asked the justices to intervene, and on July 14, the Court granted a stay, allowing the Department to proceed with the RIF.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in a 19-page opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson. She warned that the President did not have authority to dismantle a department established by Congress and accused the administration of attempting to bypass legislative control.

‍

After the Supreme Court’s order, the Department of Education implemented the previously blocked RIFs. The challengers later informed the First Circuit that the injunction had effectively lost its force, since the firings had already taken place. Litigation continues in district court, where Judge Joun has scheduled hearings on the merits of the broader claims this fall.

‍

Practical Tip:

If you are subject to a RIF, you may qualify for displacement or “bump” and “retreat” rights. These allow you to move into another position for which you are qualified, based on tenure and service. Always ask your HR office about these rights.

‍

What the Supreme Court RIF Rulings Mean

‍

• RIFs can proceed despite challenges. The Supreme Court’s interventions have allowed the administration to carry out workforce reductions while cases are still pending.
  
  
• No final word on legality. The Court has not ruled that these RIFs are lawful — only that injunctions blocking them should be lifted while litigation continues.
  
  
• Agencies now bear responsibility. Revised guidance makes clear that agencies, not OPM, are the final decision-makers on RIF actions.
  
  
• Employee protections remain. Federal employees affected by a RIF still retain statutory and regulatory rights under OPM’s RIF rules, including notice, retention rights, and appeals.

Navigating a Reduction in Force (RIF) can be stressful and confusing especially when legal decisions and agency rules affect your federal benefits. Understanding your rights is one step, but making sure your retirement and financial future are secure is another.

That’s where expert guidance makes all the difference. At Federal Pension Advisors, we specialize in helping federal employees protect their benefits, plan retirement with confidence, and make informed choices during times of change.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Supreme Court RIF decisions in OPM v. AFGE, Trump v. AFGE, and McMahon v. New York underscore the complex interplay between executive authority, employee rights, and judicial oversight. While the rulings have allowed the administration to continue with reductions in force, the legality of many RIFs is still being contested in lower courts.

‍

For federal employees, the impact is immediate: job security remains uncertain, and litigation outcomes could reshape the boundaries of RIF authority for years to come. What’s clear is that the Supreme Court’s actions mark a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over federal workforce restructuring.

‍

Disclaimer:

This material is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal, tax, or individualized financial advice. The discussion of court cases and agency actions is based on publicly available information and may not reflect the most current developments. Federal employment rights, benefits, and retirement decisions are complex and fact-specific. Employees facing reductions in force should consult with their agency’s human resources office, a qualified employment attorney, and a financial professional before making any decisions regarding appeals, retirement, or separation incentives.

‍