Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—USDA reorganization relocation deadlines temporarily halted, (Sep 15, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court paused reassignment deadlines pending review of unions’ challenge to the USDA restructuring plan.

A federal court in California temporarily halted implementation of key portions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA’s) reorganization plan after unions, local governments, and nonprofit organizations challenged the restructuring as unlawful. The plaintiffs seek to block office closures and employee relocations affecting multiple USDA components. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California stayed certain reassignment and relocation deadlines while it considers the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

Administrative stay issued. The Northern District of California on September 14 suspended deadlines contained in "management directed reassignment" letters and other reassignment or relocation notices issued under the challenged reorganization plan through October 2, 2026. The court said the stay was intended to preserve the status quo, provide time to address the merits of the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, and accommodate additional briefing requested by the defendants.

The order bars the USDA from implementing or enforcing the stayed deadlines, including pursuing termination, separation, disciplinary proceedings, or absent-without-leave status against employees who decline reassignment, do not respond to reassignment notices, or do not relocate.

The stay applies to employees in the Food and Nutrition Administration, the Research, Education, and Economics mission area, the Forest Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Rural Development mission area, the Farm Production and Conservation mission area, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. It does not apply to reassignments involving employees already located within the National Capital Region who are being moved to other locations within that region.

Lawsuit challenges reorganization. The complaint, filed September 8, names the USDA and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins as defendants. The coalition filed the action after a ruling in related litigation, AFGE v. Trump, that claims challenging the USDA reorganization should proceed in a separate lawsuit. The plaintiffs simultaneously renewed their request for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs contend USDA is undertaking an unprecedented reorganization involving office closures and relocations across the country that will force thousands of employees to choose between relocation and their jobs. According to the complaint, USDA began implementing the plan during 2026 through component-level actions and management-directed reassignment notices requiring employees to accept relocations or face separation from federal service.

Congressional approval dispute. The plaintiffs allege Congress expressly prohibited USDA from using appropriated funds to relocate employees, close offices, or reorganize programs without prior approval from House and Senate appropriations committees. According to the complaint, USDA sought authorization for the reorganization through the appropriations process, but Congress rejected the proposal and enacted restrictions barring such actions absent further approval.

The lawsuit asserts claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and alleges the reorganization exceeds USDA's statutory authority, violates appropriations restrictions, and infringes separation-of-powers principles. The plaintiffs also contend USDA acknowledged the actions would trigger congressional approval requirements but proceeded with implementation.

Agency operations at issue. According to the complaint and a Democracy Forward press release, the reorganization would significantly alter operations across several USDA components. The challenged actions include relocating Forest Service headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City, closing all nine Forest Service regional offices, relocating employees within the Foreign Agricultural Service, and moving national functions within Rural Development and Farm Production and Conservation outside the National Capital Region. The coalition also alleges the plan would effectively close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center by relocating its research operations around the country.

Attrition concerns raised. The plaintiffs allege USDA designed the reorganization knowing it would result in significant workforce losses and failed to analyze how employee departures would affect the agency's ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities. According to the complaint, preliminary agency data showed that at least 36 percent of employees receiving management-directed reassignment notices had already declined relocation. The lawsuit contends resulting attrition will impair nutrition assistance programs, agricultural research, forest management, wildfire response, and other USDA functions.

The case is No. 3:26-cv-09976.

News: LitigationNewsTrends LaborNews Labor PublicEmployees AgencyNews