A federal judge is considering whether to block the USDA from moving forward with a sweeping reorganization that unions and other plaintiffs argue violates congressional spending restrictions.
Judge Vince Chhabria in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California told attorneys during a Sept. 29 hearing that he had not determined whether to grant a preliminary injunction.
“I’m not firmly decided as to whether I’m going to grant the preliminary injunction motion or not,” Chhabria said, according to Government Executive.
Chhabria extended an administrative stay through Oct. 13, temporarily keeping USDA from enforcing deadlines tied to management-directed reassignment letters.
A preliminary injunction could halt relocation plans affecting roughly 2,600 USDA employees while the case moves forward. Chhabria also indicated that if he grants the injunction, he would not stay his own order while the administration pursues an appeal, Government Executive reported.
Congressional authority
A coalition of federal employee unions, nonprofit organizations and local governments brought the lawsuit, challenging USDA’s reorganization. At the center of the dispute is language Congress included in fiscal year 2026 appropriations laws that restrict certain reorganizations, relocations and office closures without approval from the House and Senate appropriations committees. The unions argue Congress intended those restrictions to prevent USDA from undertaking reorganizations without lawmakers’ approval.
In a supplemental brief, the plaintiffs pointed to the 2018 relocation of Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) employees to Kansas City. They noted that Congress later withheld money to complete those relocations. They also cited a proposed 2024 Rural Business-Cooperative Service reorganization that USDA abandoned after congressional committees did not approve it.
“Over the years, Congress has consistently resisted reorganization attempts by USDA that it does not approve in a myriad of ways—just as it has done here,” the brief stated.
USDA sees that history differently. In its supplemental brief, the agency said it has historically notified Congress about actions covered by the appropriations language but has not waited for committee approval. USDA cited the ERS and NIFA relocation, saying the department provided notice but did not seek congressional committee approval before proceeding.
The earlier moves also show what can happen when agencies relocate large numbers of employees. The Government Accountability Office found that ERS and NIFA saw temporary drops in staffing and productivity following the move. ERS produced fewer key reports, while NIFA took longer to process grants. Both agencies had largely recovered by the end of fiscal 2021, although their workforces were less experienced than before the relocation.
USDA also argues that requiring congressional committee approval is unconstitutional and that the spending provision only restricts certain ways of moving money, not the department’s broader authority to reorganize offices or relocate employees.
Government Executive reported that Chhabria wrestled with that issue during the hearing. Although he described the committee-approval mechanism as “obviously unconstitutional,” he also focused on Congress’ decision to strengthen the language from a notice-and-wait requirement to one requiring approval.
Scope disputed
The two sides are also fighting over how broadly the court’s temporary stay, and any eventual injunction, should apply.
In an Oct. 1 filing, the unions said the parties agreed that the stay would not prevent USDA from closing physical offices that were already empty or processing relocation payments for employees who had already moved. But they disagreed over several other proposed exceptions.
USDA sought to exclude some voluntary relocations, employees already in the relocation process and certain personnel actions involving job announcements, expressions of interest or position matching. The plaintiffs argued those exceptions could create loopholes that allow portions of the reorganization to continue before the court decides whether a preliminary injunction is warranted.
In an Oct. 2 brief, USDA argued that the spending restrictions cited by the plaintiffs do not provide grounds for broadly stopping the reorganization. The department said it has not used the reprogramming or transfer authorities covered by the appropriations provision and does not expect to do so while the current continuing resolution remains in effect.
USDA also maintained that even if the court finds the spending provision applies, its restrictions are narrower than the plaintiffs contend and do not prohibit employee relocations or office closures that can be carried out without using those specific funding mechanisms.
Chhabria acknowledged that whichever side loses the preliminary injunction fight is likely to appeal. According to Government Executive, he told the parties that if he grants the injunction, he does not intend to stay his own ruling while an appeal is pursued.
For now, USDA’s relocation deadlines remain paused as the court considers how far Congress’ spending restrictions reach and whether they provide grounds to stop the department’s reorganization while the lawsuit continues. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
