A judge has blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture from continuing with certain aspects of its planned restructuring, including relocating and laying off USDA employees.
The judge’s October 13 ruling responded to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of unions, local and city governments, and nonprofit groups. The case claims the USDA is violating the law by using appropriated funds to implement changes to the agency in ways Congress has not approved.
Subscribe for independent, evidence-based reporting on power and democratic accountability in Kentucky and beyond.
The court granted judgment to the plaintiffs, with U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria stating that the USDA is likely to lose the case and that the USDA should be temporarily barred from making further changes to the agency while the case continues. The USDA may continue work on its overall restructuring plan, but Judge Chhabria ruled that it must do so in a way that abides by the law.
What USDA was trying to do
Secretary Rollins initiated the USDA restructuring in July 2025. The administration said the changes would improve management effectiveness and efficiency, reduce the federal workforce by about 2,600 positions, and lower the cost of running the agency.
The agency said the restructuring would let staff work more closely with American farmers and communities.
The changes would involve closing several USDA offices in the Washington, D.C., area and opening new offices in Kansas City, Indianapolis, and Raleigh.
The Food and Nutrition Service said the restructuring would require closing seven of its regional offices. The Forest Service announced it would close nine of its regional offices.
USDA said the restructuring would improve the efficiency of the services it offers. The agency said it had no plans to reduce its workforce. The agency also said the restructuring would enable it to better serve citizens.
The unions expressed concerns about how the restructuring would affect services offered by the USDA. The services include, but are not limited to, Farm Services, Forest Services, Food, Nutrition, and other related services. The unions said the restructuring would likely cause many employees to lose their jobs. USDA claimed the loss of employees would not negatively impact the services. USDA stated the restructuring would likely promote efficiency.
The Court was not required to decide whether the restructuring would actually promote efficiency.
Congress had already set a limit
When Congress approved the USDA’s funding, it restricted how that money could be used to move USDA employees, alter USDA offices, and close some USDA facilities.
Reprogramming is the process by which the government changes how it uses funds Congress has appropriated for a specific purpose.
Before 2009, the USDA could alter its organization and fund its operations through specific requests to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
The USDA notified Congress of its actions to organize and alter its systems, but it did not obtain the authorization from the Appropriations Committees.
The USDA asserted that the restrictions would not limit its right to reorganize. The USDA argued that its changes would not be reprogramming.
There was also a constitutional issue. Both sides agreed that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to allow a specific committee to raise or alter appropriation limits.
The USDA argued that, to remedy the constitutional error, the court should allow the USDA to reorganize.
The Court disagreed with the USDA. The Court noted that Congress restricted the USDA’s right to reorganize, and that limitation would still apply even if Congress’s restriction on reorganizing was unconstitutional.
Federal workers took the restrictions to court
The American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, National Federation of Federal Employees, and the National Treasury Employees Union filed the lawsuit with other unions.
These unions represented employees of the USDA and other agencies.
In doing so, they invoked the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the USDA’s reorganization plan.
The APA provides for court reviews of challenges to regulations promulgated by federal agencies and provides for a temporary injunction against an agency where the court finds an agency action to be unlawful. The judge was satisfied that the USDA violated legislative restrictions on the use of appropriated funds when it directed the reorganization.
The court found that employees could not be compelled to move to a new location and that relocation orders should not have been issued.
The court did not decide whether the reorganization was sound policy.
The court noted that the Executive Branch is not permitted to expend funds in a manner inconsistent with the requirements and restrictions Congress may have imposed on those funds. The court noted that the President and the Executive Branch propose policy to Congress, and Congress can consider and approve, or disapprove, the policy and funding for the Executive Branch and its agencies. Sound policy and funding may include restrictions on how the policy is implemented.
The unions and employees they represent sought a court order to enforce the statute and policy and obtain a preliminary injunction that would govern other Executive Branch employees.
What the ruling actually accomplished
The October 13 orders addressed various office closures and employee moves within eight components of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including the Forest Service and components of the Agricultural Research Service.
USDA is restricted from taking certain actions associated with the challenged management reorganization.
The court orders cannot require employees to move to new locations outside their current commuting areas.
The judge restricted USDA from closing, consolidating, or taking any other actions that would alter the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) laboratories and research facilities, including the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
The order does allow USDA to move ARS employees within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The court orders did not require USDA to return research employees to the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from where they had been relocated. In addition, the court orders do not prevent USDA from taking lawful actions to implement other changes to the agency.
Complying with the court orders will require USDA to notify employees and unions within two business days, and the court will require an additional declaration within seven business days.
A judge has now ordered key parts of the reorganization stopped. Here’s what changed, what hasn’t, and what Congress could decide next.
Why this matters in Kentucky
The USDA touches almost every area of Kentucky from the farm to the city.
The Farm Service Agency plays a key role in implementing farm programs through loans and other disaster assistance. Rural Development provides water, waste disposal, and other essential community facilities. The agency also provides grants and other financial assistance for essential community facilities and services for extremely poor and low-income rural residents.
The preliminary injunction also included the Food and Nutrition Service.
Other key USDA programs, including WIC, are included in the injunction. The same court order has limited affected federal agencies’ ability to reorganize their facilities and programs.
The Order also shows that the agencies have complied with the restriction.
While the Court Order shows that Congress’ spending restrictions have legal effects and that the Executive Branch cannot simply disregard them, it applies beyond the agricultural program.
The next decision belongs to Congress
This court ruling has an important limitation.
The temporary court-ordered spending restrictions at the center of this lawsuit will expire on December 11, 2026, unless Congress extends them before then.
During the next period of funding appropriations, Congress could change those restrictions to allow or require some or all of the reorganization. Members of Congress could also implement a different option. Before then, the USDA could appeal this court ruling.
For the public, the key issue is whether to support or oppose efforts in Congress to allow the USDA to use its funds to close offices and move employees. Until Congress implements changes to the court-ordered spending restrictions at issue in this lawsuit, USDA is not required to change its spending to comply with them.
Those restrictions are to be determined by a court of law.
In the interim, USDA must abide by the court order and document its compliance.
If Congress takes no action, USDA can ask the court to modify the order and change the orders that prohibit USDA from making the contested reorganization and workforce changes.
Sources
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, AFGE v. USDA, October 13, 2026. Order granting stay under the Administrative Procedure Act.
USDA, Secretary Brooke Rollins Announces USDA Reorganization, July 24, 2025.
Federal News Network, USDA Ordered to Halt Sweeping Reorganization Plans, October 14, 2026.
Subscribe for independent, evidence-based reporting on power and democratic accountability in Kentucky and beyond.