Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D. Mass.: TRO against dismantlement of Justice Department’s CRS, established under Johnson administration, declined, (Nov 3, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The agency’s function is “to provide assistance… in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin….”

A federal district court in Massachusetts last week declined to issue a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s planned dismantlement of the Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency within the Department of Justice, established by Congress to address the purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at a community level. Although a group of community organizations challenging the dismantlement made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm given that the court could order the administration to rescind the agency’s shuttering, including as necessary to restaff the CRS by rehiring employees terminated by RIFs, or by transferring to the CRS employees from other divisions of DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices (Ethical Society of Police v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-13115-IT (D. Mass. Oct. 30, 2025)).

Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The CRS is an agency that was established by Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its “function [is] to provide assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes, disagreements, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin” and to offer such services “whenever, in its judgment, peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are threatened thereby.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000g-1.

Services. CRS’s services include facilitation of dialogue, mediation, training, and consultation. These services are provided at no cost to federal, state, and local governments as well as communities, and they and are tailored to each community’s needs.

Facilitated dialogue and training. Examples of CRS’s facilitated dialogue and training programs include bias incidents and hate crimes forums; protecting places of worship forums; strengthening police and community partnerships; contingency planning; maintaining safety during public events; programs to familiarize community members with customs and cultural aspects of different communities, including their beliefs, identity, practices, and civil rights-related issues that impact the community; and programs to engage student and campus leaders, administrators, law enforcement, and other school community members in identifying and resolving issues affecting their schools and campuses.

Repeatedly endorsed by Congress. Congress has repeatedly endorsed CRS’s role. It expanded CRS’s jurisdiction to include preventing and responding to violent hate crimes under the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 and the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, and it authorized direct funding for CRS to “increase the number of personnel” to perform the additional mandates. Between 2023 and 2025, Congress appropriated $24 to $25 million each fiscal year for CRS. In 2023 and 2024, CRS employed 118 personnel, including two attorneys; and in 2025, CRS employed 56 personnel, including two attorneys.

11 community organizations. Plaintiffs are 11 community organizations from around the country that have received CRS’s services. They report that “[b]etween March and June of 2025, CRS withdrew all its engagements with communities. During that period, CRS did perform services or assessments for services with approximately 150 community stakeholders, but none were continued beyond June 2025. The stakeholders from whom CRS discontinued, withdrew, and/or withheld services as a result of the planned closure of CRS included” each of the organizations.

DOJ’s plan to “eliminate” CRS. On June 13, 2025, DOJ published a Budget and Performance Summary for the 2026 fiscal year, stating “[t]he Department will eliminate CRS and its functions, a total of 56 positions. The CRS mission does not comport with Attorney General and Administration law enforcement and litigating priorities.” DOJ did not recommend any funding for CRS for the upcoming fiscal year.

RIF notices. On September 29, 2025, DOJ sent RIF notices to 14 of the remaining 15 active CRS employees, with an effective date of October 31, 2025. The plaintiffs reported that the notice stated the reason for the RIF was “the dissolution of the Community Relations Service (CRS) in accordance with the reorganization and reconsolidation of the Department of Justice.”

TRO sought. The plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court in Massachusetts, seeking to enjoin Attorney General Bondi and the DOJ “from taking any action to unlawfully dissolve or disband” the CRS. Pending before the court was their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), seeking, on an emergency basis, an order enjoining the defendants “from implementing their decision to ‘eliminate the Community Relations Service... and its functions,’” including a “temporary restraint of the Reduction in Force (‘RIF’) of CRS employees scheduled to become effective on October 31, 2025.”

Likelihood of success. The court initially found that the organizations had made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits. The defendants, the court noted, conceded that only Congress, not the executive branch, may eliminate a Congressionally created agency, and the RIF notice reportedly stated that the reason for the RIF was “the dissolution of the Community Relations Service.” Indeed, the RIF would result in only one remaining CRS employee, with two empty positions, and the only Declaration offered by the defendants was silent as to any functions that the sole remaining CRS employee would fulfill. It conceded that, if Congress continues funding CRS, DOJ would need to “reassess and consider how to comply with any funding enactment[[.]]”

No irreparable harm. Nonetheless, the court found that the organizations failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm requisite for a TRO. They argued that the impact of the RIF notices going into effect, where 14 of the 15 remaining CRS employees are being terminated, is to effectively shutter CRS’s operations permanently. Nonetheless, the court noted, if the plaintiffs were to prevail on a final judgment, or even on a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction supported by an immediate need for CRS’s services after the government shutdown ends, the court could order the defendants to rescind their shuttering of CRS, including as necessary to restaff the agency by rehiring employees terminated by the RIFs, or by transferring to CRS employees from other divisions of DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices.

A TRO was accordingly denied.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-13115-IT.

Judge: Talwani, I.

Attorneys: Ana I. Munoz (Zalkind, Duncan & Bernstein) for Ethical Society of Police. Kyle R. Freeny (Washington Litigation Group) for Pikes Peak Southern Christian Leadership Conference and NAACP State Conference Colorado-Montana-Wyoming. Abigail Stout, U.S. Department of Justice, for Pamela J. Bondi and U.S. Department of Justice.

Companies: Ethical Society of Police; Pikes Peak Southern Christian Leadership Conference; NAACP State Conference Colorado-Montana-Wyoming; U.S. Department of Justice

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Procedure RemediesDamages AgencyNews WhiteHouseNews MassachusettsNews