Thursday, May 22, a coalition of labor groups — including SEIU 1021 — as well as cities and counties and other organizations that rely on federal services won a second major victory against President Trump’s executive order illegally reorganizing the federal government.

In a courtroom in the San Francisco Federal Building, Senior District Judge Susan Illston presided over the second hearing in a case to overturn the president’s February executive order that would fire tens of thousands of federal workers and shut down entire federal agencies.

SEIU 1021 members and staff were in the courtroom listening to attorneys from both sides make their case to the judge in this second hearing. On May 9, the same judge had issued a two-week temporary restraining order pending the next hearing. That restraining order was extended to a preliminary injunction last Thursday, which means the Trump administration is indefinitely blocked from implementing reductions-in-force, placing employees on administrative leave, and proceeding with job cuts that are already in motion.

The order also bars agencies from implementing any orders by Elon Musk’s DOGE to cut programs or staff in connection with the executive order. The agencies affected include the Departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs, as well as AmeriCorps and the Social Security Administration, among others.

“It is gratifying that labor along with other advocates have been able to block these unconstitutional overreaches,” said SEIU 1021 VP of Representation Nicole Termini Germain, who was at the hearing on Thursday. ”I’m proud to be part of a strong union fighting back to protect not just services and workers’ rights, but also democracy and our constitution. I knew SEIU could do it, and we did!”

“Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed,” Judge Illston wrote in her 51-page opinion. ”But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that — by statute — they must carry out. Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.

“Put simply, in this case, defendants want the court to either declare that nine presidents and 21 Congresses did not properly understand the separation of powers, or ignore how the executive branch is implementing large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations. The court can do neither.”