Judge Pauses Agriculture Department Office Closures
A federal judge in San Francisco stopped the Agriculture Department from closing named offices or moving staff beyond their commuting areas while a lawsuit goes on, finding the moves almost certainly break spending laws; about 2,600 employees are affected, according to Government Executive.
A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday stopped the U.S. Department of Agriculture, known as USDA, from closing named offices or moving staff outside their local commuting areas while unions, cities and advocacy groups challenge its reorganization.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria granted a stay, a pause while the case goes on, after finding that the department was almost certainly paying for the moves with money Congress voted for other purposes, which current spending laws forbid without Congress's approval. The pause covers the Forest Service, the Agricultural Research Service and other offices. Government Executive said the plans affect about 2,600 employees.
Why it matters: deadlines in reassignment letters are paused, and the order is meant to keep experienced staff in place while the court decides whether the spending is lawful. The judge warned the pause "could end up being quite short": the spending limits now run to 11 December, and the administration can appeal.
The hopeful detail: Chhabria wrote that the court "has no view on whether USDA's planned reorganization is a good idea or a bad one." The stay rests on a narrower point: that the spending laws Congress wrote almost certainly forbid paying for it this way.
San Francisco — U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria on Tuesday, 13 October, ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to stop closing offices and forcing staff moves that would take workers outside their usual commuting areas, while unions, cities and advocacy groups challenge Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins's reorganization plan in court.
The 40-page order grants a stay under section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that lets a judge pause agency action before a final ruling so that a later remedy still means something. Chhabria found that USDA was almost certainly "reprogramming" money — using funds Congress voted for other purposes — to shut offices and relocate employees, and that spending statutes for the current fiscal year forbid that unless Congress lifts the bar.
What Congress wrote into the money bills
Appropriations laws that fund USDA say the department may not reprogram money for reorganization. A reprogramming, in budget jargon, is spending appropriated dollars for a purpose Congress did not contemplate when it wrote the bill. The same statutes include a committee-approval escape hatch: USDA could proceed if the House and Senate Appropriations Committees signed off. Both sides in the case agree that committee-veto language is unconstitutional. Chhabria held that once that unconstitutional piece is stripped out, what remains is the ban — not a blank check for the agency to reorganize with appropriated cash.
What the stay covers
The order applies to the Agricultural Research Service, including the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center; the Forest Service; the Food and Nutrition Administration; the Research, Education, and Economics mission area; the Foreign Agricultural Service; Rural Development; Farm Production and Conservation; the Office of the General Counsel; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
USDA may not close or eliminate those offices, or relocate or reassign employees or their jobs outside the local commuting area — including by sending "management directed reassignment" letters with deadlines. Moves from one office to another inside the Washington area, which the order calls the National Capital Region, are still allowed. Voluntary transfers won through ordinary job competitions are also allowed if they are unrelated to the stayed reorganization.
Government Executive, reporting the ruling, said the freeze covers plans affecting about 2,600 employees. Democracy Forward, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the plan would have moved Forest Service headquarters to Salt Lake City, closed all nine Forest Service regional offices and five of seven Food and Nutrition regional offices that help run food aid such as SNAP and WIC, and shifting research and trade functions away from the capital region.
What it means in practice
For USDA workers named in reassignment letters, the deadlines are paused. For farmers, forest users and households that rely on nutrition programs, the order is meant to keep experienced staff in place while the court decides whether the spending is lawful. Chhabria wrote that the court "has no view on whether USDA's planned reorganization is a good idea or a bad one," but that on this record the balance of harms and the public interest "strongly support" pausing it.
The judge warned that the pause "could end up being quite short." The spending restrictions at issue, first set to lapse on 30 September, were extended by Congress to 11 December 2026, the order says. The administration can also appeal.
What happens next
USDA must notify affected employees and unions within two business days and file a compliance declaration within seven business days. The lawsuit continues toward a fuller ruling on whether the reorganization violates the appropriations statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act. If Congress lets the reprogramming bans lapse in December, the legal footing of the stay will change even if the case is still pending.