Federal judge rules Trump DHS plan for 50% FEMA staffing cuts was unlawful
Law Journal
A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.
The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organization had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security, which was then led by Secretary Kristi Noem, violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, pushing back on efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA's leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency's own supervisors objected.
"Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air," wrote Illston.
FEMA responded in a statement late Saturday that while it does not comment on personnel matters and ongoing litigation, "DHS and FEMA are ready for the 2026 hurricane season."
"We're ensuring workforce stability and a strong, deployable force for upcoming national events and potential disasters; making the agency leaner, faster and laser-focused on supporting state, local, tribal and territorial partners before, during and after disasters," it said. "FEMA continues to maintain a roster of experienced leadership and support staff across headquarters and regional offices."
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In the opinion, Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005's Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security and that prevented DHS from "substantially" reducing the "functions" of FEMA.
Illston didn't order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.
Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.
FEMA was one of the agencies targeted in the federal government for staff reductions as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs, and delays of disaster aid.
In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions ahead of midterms
Law Journal 09/15/2026The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's bid to restrict mail ballots for the midterm elections, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting already underway.The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ba...
-
25 states sue over Trump’s new tariffs, calling them ‘pretext’ to replace his old ones
Law Journal 08/05/2026Twenty-five states sued the Trump administration Monday over its latest tariffs, calling them a pretext for replacing import taxes the Supreme Court struck down in February.The United States last month imposed double-digit tariffs on 59 countries and...
-
The U.S. government can continue collecting the 10% worldwide tariff it imposed
Law Journal 07/26/2026The U.S. government can continue collecting the 10% worldwide tariff it imposed in February while legal challenges to the levies continue to work their way through the courts, a federal court ruled Thursday.The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circui...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.
