A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily paused President Trump’s planned drastic staff reductions at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), acting shortly after a related court decision altered the scope of an earlier injunction. Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s ruling seeks to determine if the planned layoffs represent a violation of previous legal directives.
The order effectively halts the terminations, which were intended to eliminate approximately 90% of the bureau’s workforce – roughly 1,400 employees – leaving just a handful remaining. This action followed a lawsuit filed by several parties including the CFPB Employee Association and other labor organizations.
“I’m willing to resolve it quickly, but I’m not going to let this RIF go forward until I have,” Judge Jackson stated during Friday’s hearing, emphasizing her serious concerns regarding the scale of the proposed changes. She noted that within days of a narrower injunction from the appeals court, CFPB staff were informed they would proceed with the reduction-in-force (RIF) as previously prohibited.
The Justice Department had attempted to expedite an appeal of Judge Jackson’s initial order, arguing that the injunction overstepped the executive branch’s authority and lacked legal justification. This effort highlighted a significant point of contention regarding governmental power and judicial oversight.
Judge Jackson has implemented several key safeguards until her next hearing scheduled for April 28th. Specifically, she is preventing any layoffs from taking place and barring the agency from restricting employee access to their computers. “We’re not going to disperse more than 1,400 employees ‘into the universe…until we have determined that is lawful or not,” she declared.
The legal challenge originated in early February when plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order against the administration’s efforts to significantly reduce the bureau’s size. The initial court ruling established a preliminary injunction, demanding the government reinstate terminated employees and cease any attempts to halt work through unlawful means. However, an appeal by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals partially suspended this requirement, focusing solely on the reinstatement obligation.
The case reflects broader legal battles surrounding executive branch authority and judicial intervention in governmental actions, particularly concerning significant personnel changes within federal agencies.
