A federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Susan Illston, presided over a hearing regarding a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s attempts to restructure the federal government without congressional authorization. The plaintiffs, a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments, argue that Trump’s actions violate the Constitution. Judge Illston seemed inclined to temporarily block the administration’s overhaul, emphasizing the need for cooperation with Congress in significant government transformations. The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to halt further implementation of mass layoffs, emphasizing the importance of protecting the legislative branch’s power.

The Trump administration’s lawyer argued against the restraining order, claiming the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the motion. The administration maintained that the President has inherent authority over executing laws. The plaintiffs contended that the administration’s secrecy hindered their ability to assess the implementation of Trump’s directives.

The plaintiffs, including government employee unions and cities like Chicago and San Francisco, challenged Trump’s executive order directing mass layoffs and program closures. They accused agencies of following Trump’s orders without independent analysis. The administration defended the order as providing broad direction within legal boundaries, while the plaintiffs argued it mandated layoffs based on the President’s instructions.

The case reflects broader legal battles over Trump’s executive authority. Judge Illston scrutinized the argument that the court lacks jurisdiction, questioning whether the overhaul necessitated congressional oversight. The ongoing dispute highlights the complexities of balancing executive power with constitutional checks and balances.