USDA’s request to lift stay on employee relocations denied by federal judge 

A federal judge is denying the Trump administration’s request to lift his temporary hold on the Agriculture Department’s employee relocation plans. 

Justice Department attorneys asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for relief from his Oct. 13 ruling barring USDA from carrying out employee relocations, on the grounds that the stay “significantly hinders USDA’s operations across the board.”

DOJ attorneys argued the court’s stay makes it harder for the Forest Service to fill “critical positions” in wildfire management and avalanche mitigation through reassignments, and “impairs USDA’s ability to conduct cutting-edge research.”

Judge Vince Chhabria denied the administration’s request for a stay pending appeal in a ruling Wednesday, but ordered all parties to “meet and confer regarding a proposed stipulated clarification of the stay order.”

“For issues not addressed in any stipulated clarification, the Court would consider a very narrow motion to clarify or modify the stay order,” Chhabria said. 

Chhabria previously told DOJ attorneys that, “if I issue a preliminary stay, I’m not going to stay it.” The administration appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appeals court has kept the lower court’s ruling in place for now.  

The district court’s stay prohibits USDA from "issuing or enforcing [management-directed relocation] letters or any other notice or directive of reassignment or relocation in whole or in part.” It does not prevent USDA from relocating or reassigning USDA employees in the Washington, D.C. area to other offices within the region.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys countered that USDA waited more than two weeks after Chhabria’s order to file its order for a stay, and that this “lengthy delay undermines any claim of irreparable harm.” They also wrote that nothing in Chhabria’s ruling prevents USDA from carrying out reassignments unrelated to its reorganization plans.

“USDA’s demonstrated desire and intent to continue its reorganization despite the Court’s Order — rather than purported impacts to agency operations — appear to be the real impetus for its motion,” plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote.  

A USDA employee recently told Government Executive in October that his voluntary relocation from one job to another has been put on hold by the district court’s stay – despite the move having nothing to do with the department’s reorganization plans.  

But Chhabria’s stay permits USDA to “reassign a covered employee who applies or applied to a job announcement on USAJobs or other internal agency merit-hiring application processes, is selected for the position, and accepts the position, provided that the reassignment is unrelated to the reorganization activities.” 

“USDA’s argument is premised entirely on misreading the Court’s Order as preventing USDA from accepting voluntary relocations to fill any and all open positions — even those that have nothing to do with the reorganization,” plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. 

Despite the court’s stay, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins recently told reporters that “we are full-bore ahead in the reorganization.”  A USDA spokesperson declined to clarify what Rollins meant by her statement, and said “her comment speaks for itself.”

Government Executive first reported that USDA’s second-largest component, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, sent more relocation notices to employees in late October, seemingly in violation of the court’s stay. A USDA spokesperson said the department "is complying with the court order," but did not elaborate, adding only that "USDA does not comment on specific personnel issues." 

Plaintiffs’ attorneys told the court that USDA has “taken some reorganization steps contrary to the Court’s order, in which Plaintiffs were required to intervene.” They wrote that USDA sent relocation notices to at least two NRCS employees and only issued “corrected” notices telling employees they were not being relocated after plaintiffs’ counsel demanded rescission of the notices. 

“This letter is a correction to the prior reassignment notice issued to you on October 28, 2026,” NRCS Acting Associate Chief wrote in a corrected notice shared with the court. 

A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governments filed a lawsuit in July arguing that USDA’s sweeping relocation plans are a veiled effort to keep shrinking its workforce – and that USDA tried to circumvent guardrails on reorganization set by Congress in its most recent spending package.

“USDA seeks to proceed with its reorganization despite Congress’s express prohibition of such activities, and yet offers no argument why or how its desire to proceed can be squared with that congressional bar," plaintiffs' attorneys wrote. 

Chhabria, in his Oct. 13 ruling, cautioned that the scope of relief from his stay “could end up being quite short.” The spending bill provisions blocking USDA from using congressional funds on reorganization are currently set to expire on Dec. 11. 

“USDA’s policy preference to pursue its reorganization should be taken up with Congress — which is slated to decide within the next month whether to extend or discontinue the appropriation statutes prohibitions at issue — not with the Court," plaintiffs' attorneys wrote. "What USDA’s motion really seeks is permission to do exactly what Congress has so far said it cannot, and immediately relocate or terminate hundreds of employees, with many more relocations and terminations to follow imminently.” 

USDA agencies saw major staffing losses when it relocated hundreds of D.C.-based employees to Kansas City, Mo., under the first Trump administration — a much smaller-scale plan than what USDA is proposing under the second Trump term. USDA under the second Trump term is planning to relocate about 2,600 of its employees to regional “hubs” across the country. USDA sent about 725 relocation notices, as of late August.