A federal judge in California temporarily blocked the move of the Forest Service headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, finding that the USDA violated congressional restrictions. The order prevents closing offices or reassigning staff while the lawsuit is resolved.
A federal district judge in California temporarily blocked the move of the U.S. Forest Service headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah, while the lawsuit challenging the agency's restructuring is resolved. In an order signed Tuesday, Judge Vince Chhabria, of the Northern District of California, granted a stay on the move and held that Congress has imposed restrictions on the USDA's ability to reorganize without its approval.
The USDA, which oversees the Forest Service, "has almost certainly been violating those restrictions," the judge wrote, adding that "preliminary relief is necessary to protect the congressional prerogative, prevent irreparable harm to federal employees, and vindicate the public interest." "Congress did not contemplate USDA using its appropriated funds to shut down offices or relocate employees," he added. "To the contrary, Congress was actively working to restrict the agency's ability to do so."
The plan dates back to March, when the USDA announced it would move its headquarters to Utah as part of a "sweeping restructuring" of the Forest Service. Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins called the decision a "common sense" measure to position the agency "closer to the landscapes we manage and the people who depend on them." The restructuring would also close and consolidate nearly two dozen research facilities and open new, smaller state-based offices.
Last month, a group of nonprofits, local governments and labor unions filed a lawsuit to block the plan as unlawful, calling it an "unprecedented reorganization" that would close offices across the country and force thousands of USDA employees to "choose between their families, communities, churches, and lives they have built, and their careers." According to the plaintiffs, Congress not only rejected the plan but "went beyond rejecting the Administration's budget proposal that reflected the reorganized and downsized USDA, and expressly prohibited the reorganization of the agency without further congressional approval."
In response to the lawsuit, USDA officials estimated that about 250 people would be relocated, not thousands. However, the judge determined that regardless of that figure, the proposed reorganization would "certainly affect more than 10 staff members and therefore fall within the definition of reprogramming," which would require congressional approval.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox had called the move "a big win for Utah and the West." "Moving away from a regional model to a more state-focused approach strengthens federalism and helps the Forest Service do its job more effectively," he said at the time.
After the ruling was announced, Cox and Utah's top Republican legislative leaders — House Speaker Mike Schultz and Senate President Stuart Adams — issued a joint statement calling the decision "a setback for common sense and responsible management of our public lands." "Decisions affecting Western forests and communities should be made closer to the people who know these lands best, not by bureaucrats and special interests thousands of miles away in Washington, D.C.," they said, adding: "We hope this decision is quickly reversed so Forest Service leadership can better serve the West."
While the rest of the litigation moves forward, the order prevents Rollins and other USDA leaders from closing offices or reassigning employees to new locations outside their areas. The judge specified that the measure does not prevent relocating or reassigning employees within the National Capital Region in Washington, D.C., but it does prohibit moving positions outside that area.
Chhabria warned, however, that "the temporal scope of this relief could end up being quite short." "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," the order states. "Congress, if it agrees, can choose not to extend the restrictions at issue in this case."
"But until then, USDA is preliminarily enjoined from spending appropriated funds on the challenged office closures and employee relocations," the judge concluded.
