Judge halts U.S. Forest Service reorganization, ruling that it is ‘overwhelmingly likely’ that plans violated federal law

A judge has ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to pause its controversial recognition plans — which include the U.S. Forest Service — amid a lawsuit from unions representing employees of the federal department.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria issued the order halting the reorganization on Oct. 13, ruling that President Donald Trump’s administration likely violated federal law when the Department of Agriculture reorganization moved forward.

“It is overwhelmingly likely that the USDA’s planned closures and relocations violate Congress’s express restriction on those activities,” Chharbria wrote. “There is no public interest in allowing the government to violate federal law.”

When it passed a federal funding bill for 2026, Congress rejected the Trump administration’s proposed budget reductions at the Department of Agriculture and included language in the legislation that explicitly barred funds from being used on reorganization. Despite the lack of funding from Congress, the Department of Agriculture has moved forward with its reorganization efforts.

The federal judge for the Northern District of California ruled that the Department of Agriculture has “almost certainly” used congressionally-delegated funds for a purpose other than what they were dedicated to, in violation of the law. Chharbria, however, did not issue a final ruling in the case.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition that includes the American Federation of Government Employees, a federal employee union that represents about 820,000 individual workers across the government, and nonprofits including the Western Watershed Project. Opponents of the reorganization have raised concerns that it aims to gut agencies, rather than achieve the stated agency’s goal of increasing government efficiency.

“Congress told USDA in plain language that it could not close offices and uproot its workforce without permission,” said Everett Kelley, President of the American Federation of Government Employees, in a statement. “USDA did it anyway, so (the union) and our partners took them to court. These forced moves were never about efficiency. They were about pushing experienced people out the door.”

The Department of Agriculture announced its plan to reorganize in the summer of 2025, on the back of a massive wave of federal staffing cuts in the first days of Trump’s second term. A memo described the reorganization as part of the department’s “process of reducing its workforce,” according to court documents.

After the announcement, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry held a hearing on the proposed reorganization, and members of Congress sent letters raising concerns about the forced employee relocations. 

Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, who sits on that committee, has been a leading opponent of the reorganization plans in Congress and has raised concerns that restructuring at the Forest Service could impact the agency’s ability to respond to wildfires. In Colorado, about 16 million acres, or about one-quarter of the state’s total land, is managed by the U.S. Forest Service — and most of those federal lands are on the Western Slope.

“Colorado communities have expressed concerns that the (Forest Service) reorganization may reduce staff retention, delay critical hazardous fuels reduction work and disrupt critical permitting, contracts and agreements for ski resorts, guides and outfitters, and other businesses,” wrote Bennet and the rest of Colorado’s Democratic Congressional Delegation in a June letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins.

In April, the Forest Service announced a “sweeping restructuring” that includes moving the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, shuttering regional offices and consolidating dozens of research facilities across the country into a single organization based in Fort Collins.

At the Forest Service, more than 6,000 employees have been notified that they are being considered for mandatory relocation and “it’s likely that many affected employees will decline to move and will instead leave,” according to court documents. The lawsuit states that the Department of Agriculture started bargaining with unions representing the affected employees, but has made it clear it is unwilling to negotiate whether relocations occur.

If implemented, the Department of Agriculture reorganization could also have widespread impacts on the Food and Nutrition Administration, according to the lawsuit. That could include programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC.

Court documents show that relocations from the reorganization could affect up to 870 of the roughly 1,200 employees at the Food and Nutrition Administration — and in a recent employee survey, about 90% of respondents working on supplemental nutrition programs said they are unlikely to relocate.

“USDA’s reorganization efforts risk disrupting programs on which many Americans depend,” Chharbria wrote. “The Food and Drug Administration, through programs like SNAP and WIC, provides food to low-income families, including millions of children and infants. And the Forest Service is charged with preventing and fighting wildfires, which can devastate not only federal forests and grasslands but also the people and property that surround them.”

While the judge noted that “it does not appear USDA has conducted any analysis to show that these risks are not real or are outweighed by any potential benefits,” he said the ruling does not weigh in on whether the reorganization is a “good idea or a bad one.”

Chharbria noted in the order that the pause stops the Department of Agriculture from expending funds dedicated by Congress for its 2026 budget, which has nearly lapsed, so its effects could be short-lived. He noted that the 2027 federal budget process is another opportunity for the Trump administration to make its case that a reorganization is necessary.

“It’s worth emphasizing that the temporal scope of this relief could end up being quite short,” Chharbria said. “The relevant appropriations statutes are set to expire in less than two months. If the agency wishes to move forward with its plans to close offices and relocate employees, it will soon have the opportunity to convince Congress of the merits of those plans.”