A federal judge on Friday called for a two-week pause in the Trump administration’s plans for mass layoffs and programme closures, barring two dozen agencies from moving forward with the largest phase of the President’s downsizing efforts, which the judge said was illegal without congressional authorization.

Of all the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s vision to dramatically scale back the form and function of the federal government, this one is poised to have the broadest effect. Most of the agencies have yet to announce their downsizing plans, but employees across the government have been anxiously waiting for announcements that have been expected for weeks.

Ruling just hours after an emergency hearing on Friday, Judge Susan Illston of the federal district court for the northern district of California said the government’s effort to lay off workers and shut down offices and programmes created an urgent threat to scores of critical services.

Congress set up a specific process for the federal government to reorganise itself. The unions and organisations behind the lawsuit have argued that the President does not have the authority to make those decisions without the legislative branch.

Judge Illston noted that process requires consultation with Congress on any plan to abolish or transfer part of an agency.

“It is the prerogative of Presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government,” she wrote in a 42-page order. “But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any President must enlist the help of his coequal branch and partner, the Congress.”

Judge Illston listed services that could disappear if the offices that administer them were wiped out, including disaster relief funds for farmers after a flood, in-person appointments for social security recipients to discuss their benefits, workplace safety inspections in mines and grants that support kindergarten programme.

The scenario evoked what already happened at the department of health and human services — when mass layoffs caused major disruptions to programmes — but on a larger scale. The deep cuts there indirectly hampered programmes such as one that helps low-income families afford heating bills, and another that helps states track rates of chronic disease and gun violence.

While unions have sued the federal government over other personnel actions, including indiscriminately firing thousands of probationary workers earlier this year, this is the first time such a broad coalition has challenged the administration’s actions.

New York Times News Service