In a sharp blow to the Trump administration’s downsizing agenda, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose issued a preliminary injunction halting the March 27, 2025 overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), siding with a coalition of nineteen states and the District of Columbia.
The controversial plan, spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aimed to eliminate 10,000 jobs, close or merge several sub-agencies, and reduce regional coverage across the country, without Congressional approval.
The plaintiffs argued that HHS’s proposed changes would harm federally mandated programs and undermine public health efforts across the country.
Also Read: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s CDC Overhaul’ Critically Weakened’ US Vaccine Program, Say Ousted Experts
The preliminary injunction blocks HHS from proceeding with its restructuring plans while litigation proceeds, marking another legal obstacle to the Trump administration’s broader push to streamline the federal government.
The controversy centers on HHS’s announcement on March 27, 2025, outlining a major overhaul intended to “Make America Healthy Again.”
The proposed changes included cutting the number of federal health employees, closing or consolidating various sub-agencies, slashing regional offices by half, and launching a new division called the Administration for a Healthy America.
“The States have shown a likelihood of success on their claims that the HHS’s action was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to law,” wrote District Judge Melissa DuBose.
According to the states, these actions were implemented without following the required legal procedures and posed serious risks to health programs affecting millions.
The states filed suit, claiming the reorganization violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution.
They requested a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of the changes. HHS responded with jurisdictional challenges, arguing the states lacked standing and should have filed in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act or navigated the Civil Service Reform Act procedures.
In a detailed ruling, the court rejected those defenses. It found the states did have standing and that HHS’s announcement constituted final agency action, making it subject to judicial review. The judge also concluded that the case did not fall under the Civil Service Reform Act or the Tucker Act.
While it declined to address constitutional claims at this stage, the court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm and that halting the reorganization served the public interest.
A California judge issued a preliminary injunction against restructuring plans at HHS in May.
A federal district court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out large-scale reductions in the federal workforce, siding with plaintiffs who argued the executive branch overstepped its authority without congressional approval.
The ruling emphasizes that the president cannot restructure federal agencies or initiate widespread layoffs without the involvement of Congress, which created the agencies and dictates their functions. Endpoint News published a copy of the lawsuit online.
Defendants argue that these changes fall within regulatory bounds and deny that reorganization is occurring. They insist that agencies take the actions independently, based on existing laws.
However, the court found this explanation insufficient and pointed to the administration’s reluctance to produce relevant documents, particularly the reorganization plans.
The court noted that other courts have rejected similar defenses in recent rulings, which viewed attempts to frame centralized decisions as isolated agency actions as implausible.
On May 9, the court issued a temporary two-week pause and has now granted a preliminary injunction halting further reductions and reorganizations for the duration of the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs include labor unions, non-profits, and local governments, all warned that agency restructuring would make it impossible to fulfill congressional mandates.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is also under scrutiny by the courts over allegations that the current administration is unlawfully obstructing its grant-making process.
In February, under updated guidelines, NIH said it would now apply a standard indirect cost rate of 15% to all new and existing grants, replacing the previous practice of negotiating separate rates for each grant.
Read Next:
Photo by lev radin via Shutterstock