The country’s largest coalition of labor unions is requesting an urgent meeting over the Trump administration’s seeming disregard for a federal judge’s temporary injunction that prohibits officials from executing widespread staff reductions.

The plaintiffs, represented by the AFL-CIO, claim to have received information indicating that at least two federal agencies, specifically the State Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, have persisted in following President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14210 notwithstanding the preliminary injunction by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston that prohibits such actions.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The February executive order, titled “Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” ordered each agency to “conduct a comprehensive review” of their “contracting policies, procedures, and personnel,” as well as root out “waste, fraud, and abuse.” DOGE began accessing government data, reorganizing agencies, and laying off federal employees they deemed superfluous.

On May 9, however, Illston granted a request from the plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and then, about two weeks later, issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the three agencies principally tasked with the firings and reorganization — the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and DOGE — lacked the requisite statutory authority to carry out these tasks.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in and lift the injunction after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay the order in a 2-1 vote last week.

Now, the law groups, including the Democracy Forward Foundation and Altshuler Berzon LLP, are accusing the administration of skirting Illston’s order — saying the White House is arguing the State Department and HUD are acting of their own volition and that their actions are not part of Trump’s executive order on which Illston, a Clinton employee serving in the Northern District of California, ruled.

The plaintiffs wrote on Tuesday:

“The State Department has given notice to Congress that it is continuing to implement the reorganization plan (announced April 22, 2025) that was the subject of Plaintiffs’ TRO and preliminary injunction motions, and which was specifically referenced by this Court’s preliminary injunction order. Specifically, last week the State Department announced that it intends to shortly issue widespread RIF notices to effectuate this reorganization, and counsel for Defendants has taken the new position that this reorganization is not, in fact, covered by this Court’s injunction.”

They also claimed that “with respect to HUD, probationary employees have been re-terminated in furtherance of the HUD reduction in workforce efforts, again, after this Court’s injunctive orders.” They further alleged that the Department of Health and Human Services placed employees on administrative leave or conducted other off-boarding actions after Illston’s TRO and preliminary injunction.