Federal Judge Halts U.S. Agriculture Department Reorganization Over Congressional Funding Violations
A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to pause its controversial restructuring plans, concluding that the administration likely violated federal law by proceeding with office closures and workforce relocations despite explicit prohibitions from Congress.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California issued the preliminary injunction halting the reorganization. In his ruling, Chhabria wrote that it is “overwhelmingly likely” that the Department of Agriculture’s planned actions violate express congressional restrictions, adding that “there is no public interest in allowing the government to violate federal law.”
The legal challenge was brought by a coalition including the American Federation of Government Employees—a union representing roughly 820,000 federal workers across the government—and nonprofit organizations such as the Western Watershed Project. Opponents of the restructuring have argued that the plans are designed to hollow out federal agencies rather than achieve stated goals of government efficiency.
When Congress passed a federal funding bill for 2026, lawmakers explicitly rejected proposed budget reductions at the Department of Agriculture and included language barring federal funds from being used on agency reorganization. Despite this lack of funding, the department continued its restructuring efforts. Chhabria ruled that the agency has “almost certainly” used congressionally delegated funds for unauthorized purposes, though he did not issue a final ruling on the underlying lawsuit.
Union leadership welcomed the court’s intervention. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, stated that Congress explicitly told the department it could not close offices and uproot its workforce without permission. Kelley asserted that the forced moves were never about efficiency, but rather about pushing experienced personnel out the door.
The Department of Agriculture first announced its restructuring plans in the summer of 2025, following a wave of federal staffing cuts enacted during the opening days of the second administration of President Donald Trump. Court documents indicate that an internal memo described the reorganization as part of an ongoing process to reduce the federal workforce.
The plans have drawn sharp pushback from lawmakers, including members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, who previously held hearings and sent inquiry letters regarding the forced employee relocations. Colorado Democratic Senator Michael Bennet has emerged as a vocal opponent, raising particular concerns about how restructuring within the U.S. Forest Service could impair wildfire response capabilities. In Colorado, approximately 16 million acres—about one-quarter of the state’s total land area—are managed by the Forest Service, largely concentrated on the Western Slope.
In a June letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, Bennet and Colorado’s congressional delegation warned that the reorganization risks reducing staff retention, delaying critical hazardous fuels reduction work, and disrupting permitting and contracts for ski resorts, guide services, and local businesses. The Forest Service announced a sweeping restructuring in April that involves moving its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, closing regional offices, and consolidating dozens of research facilities nationwide into a single organization based in Fort Collins, Colorado. Court records show that more than 6,000 Forest Service employees have been notified of potential mandatory relocation, with many expected to leave rather than move.
The lawsuit warns that the reorganization will also heavily impact the Food and Nutrition Administration, potentially affecting programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. Court filings indicate that up to 870 of the administration’s roughly 1,200 employees could be subject to relocation. A recent internal survey found that approximately 90% of respondents working on those supplemental nutrition programs are unlikely to relocate.
In his order, Chhabria emphasized the tangible risks posed to vital public programs. He noted that the department provides food to millions of low-income families, children, and infants through SNAP and WIC, while the Forest Service plays a crucial role in preventing and fighting wildfires that threaten federal lands and surrounding communities. The judge observed that the agency did not appear to have conducted any analysis demonstrating that these risks are outweighed by potential benefits, though he stressed that his ruling does not evaluate whether the reorganization is fundamentally a good or bad idea.
Chhabria also noted that the practical impact of the injunction could be limited in duration because the relevant appropriations statutes are set to expire in less than two months. He pointed out that the upcoming 2027 federal budget process will provide the administration with another opportunity to present its case for restructuring directly to Congress.
