**Appeals Court Maintains Block on Federal Workforce Reductions Ordered by Trump Administration**

In a significant legal decision on Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to freeze a California judge's injunction, which prevents the Trump administration from proceeding with its efforts to trim down the federal workforce. This ruling leaves the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) proposed cuts on hold for the time being.

In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court stated that the Executive Order in question significantly oversteps the President's constitutional authority. "The President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies," the court noted, but emphasized that this power has its limits.

The Trump administration had sought an emergency stay against an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco. The injunction arose from a lawsuit brought by labor unions and major cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, questioning the legality of the administration's actions to reduce federal jobs. The cuts have already led to tens of thousands of federal workers being fired, resigning through deferred programs, or being placed on leave. Official figures are unclear, but at least 75,000 federal employees have reportedly taken deferred resignations, and many probationary workers have been dismissed.

Judge Illston's injunction effectively suspends all federal agencies from implementing the workforce reduction orders outlined in the President's executive order signed in February, along with a subsequent memo from DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, noted in her ruling that while Presidents can initiate large-scale reforms of federal agencies, such overhauls require Congressional cooperation.

Government lawyers argued that the executive order and memo offered merely a set of guidelines for agencies to make their own decisions regarding personnel reductions and reorganizations. Nonetheless, the appeals court's ruling maintains the current pause on these workforce cuts as legal proceedings continue.