Next Interior Memos weekly digest 2025-10-23
Heavy news week, and a guest author to help explain some of it
As you will have noticed, there was a good bit of news for Interior late last week and early this week. We ran a “Sunday Edition” to cover the basics of the Reductions-In-Force (RIFs) news and the Alaska typhoon disaster. New information became available on both Monday and Tuesday this week, and Tony Irish, a former associate solicitor with Interior, did a great job diving into the details and providing really helpful insight. I asked Tony if he’d be willing to contribute to this week’s digest with a “deep summary” and—fortunately for everyone—he was! So before we get to other news items, an action item, and a tease for a release next week, I’ll turn the mic over to him (thanks, Tony):
RIFs update (Tony)
A common aphorism applied to the legal profession is “the wheels of justice turn slowly.” The statement is common because it was, is, and will necessarily continue to be true. Even as to the merits of the current shutdown RIF case, final resolution is likely years away. Nonetheless, when stakes are high, when a party to litigation acts with seeming reckless disregard, and when a court is so inclined, the inner gears of that wheel can move with lightning speed and also offer some temporary relief. Such has been the case so far this week in the Northern District of California. A brief summary with an Interior focus.
On Monday, Interior filed a declaration describing otherwise imminent RIFs at the agency that would have affected competitive areas that included employees who were represented by the four unions then a part of the litigation (RIFs that cannot occur while the current temporary restraining order (TRO) is in place). Interior indicated that there were 89 such competitive areas for which RIFs abolishing 2,050 positions were otherwise imminent, and that within those areas there were a total of 14,212 employees, 4,833 of which are members of four covered unions. The declaration also included a detailed list of each competitive area, and many media outlets have provided further breakdowns of the numbers, you can find one such bureau-level rundown here.
Tuesday brought more activity. Pursuant to a schedule established by the court, the unions filed a motion for preliminary injunction (PI). This is necessary because a TRO is a time-limited essentially emergency measure. A PI provides more refined and lasting relief, potentially for the duration of the slow wheel turn of a case. Notably, as part of the PI motion the unions are also asking the court to order the defendant agencies to provide an accounting of all RIFs the defendant agencies have initiated since October 1, or have been in preparation between October 15 and when the court rules on the PI motion. Previously, the defendant agencies have only been required to account for RIFs in areas where there were employees represented by the plaintiff unions.
Perhaps more notably, the plaintiff unions also on Tuesday moved to add three more unions (and six more agencies) to the scope of the TRO (and to amend their complaint to reflect the same changes). All three of the newly proposed unions have sizable presences at Interior: the National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU”); the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the AFL-CIO (“IFPTE”); and American Federation of Teachers (“AFT”). If the court granted this order, it would both expand the number of areas for which Interior cannot RIF, and, if Interior had been planning to soon RIF outside of the 89 areas already covered by the TRO, go back and reassess whether any employees in those areas are represented by the newly added unions.
On Wednesday, the court indeed granted the order to expand the TRO. Interior is now currently restrained from conducting a RIF in any area that contains an employee represented by the NTEU, IFPTE, and AFT, in addition to the plaintiff unions: AFGE, NAGE, NFFE, and SEIU.
As I write on Wednesday evening, who knows what Thursday may bring. Friday, however, we know will bring the Government’s “responsive papers” to the motion for preliminary injunction (almost certainly in the form of opposition to the motion). Should the plaintiffs wish to reply to the Government’s response (they will) they must do so by Monday at 3:00 Pacific time. The court will hold a hearing on the PI motion Tuesday at 10:30 Pacific. If I were a betting person, my money would be on a ruling shortly thereafter.
TROs, generally, are unappealable, while PIs are appealable. Lawyers like to say generally a lot to cover their bases, here necessarily so as recently the Supreme Court construed a TRO as more like a PI and on that basis found the ability to strike it down. Nonetheless, a ruling on the PI is likely to be issued within the next week, so I think an attempt to appeal the TRO is unlikely. Whatever the ruling on the PI is, it will undoubtedly be appealed to the 9th Circuit, and likely find its way to the Supreme Court.
A fast-moving court system is a whiplash-inducing yo-yo ride. All the more so when thousands of peoples’ livelihoods and the capacity to ably carry out Interior’s grand missions is at stake amidst a shutdown. Whatever happens in this case in the coming week, good or ill, will only be temporary in nature. Anxiety will remain palpable. Breathe deep, get outdoors or find whatever your form of relaxation is if you are able, try to remain informed, and above all take care of yourself and one another.
If you care to read directly the existing and future filings in this litigation, you can find most of them for free here on Courtlistener.
We'll keep tracking RIF and shutdown matters and provide updates as needed.