A federal judge in Washington, D.C., refused to mince words Monday when responding to arguments made by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department over a reported firing sweep at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, repeatedly chastising its lawyers for failing to answer questions and making “red herring” claims about the case, such as protests being the reason Trump shut down the CFPB’s main building and fired employees.
“I don’t care where they work; I care whether they work,” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson told DOJ lawyers during a three-hour preliminary injunction hearing, which concluded with her ordering an evidentiary hearing and additional testimony for next Monday.
“I think the pleading, telling me, ‘Oh, we don’t need the building,’ and singing the praises of working remotely are not the point,” Jackson told me. “Putting aside the fact that it appears to contradict this administration’s position, it’s a red herring.
You also complain that you couldn’t get any work done because there were so many protests outside the building, which is a complete red herring that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. I want to know if work is being done, not where.
The National Treasury Employees Union has filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia accusing the Trump administration and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Voughtof of unlawfully firing CFPB employees without cause and deleting CFPB data from its records, including important CFPB contracts that are “necessary for cybersecurity,” according to Deepak Gupta, the union’s attorney.
“This unusual, unprecedented, wholesale termination of all of the agency’s contracts threatens all of the functions of the Bureau,” Gupta informed reporters on Monday. “That, I believe, is the most obvious irreparable part, along with dismantling the agency. … Reducing the agency to a mere five individuals would be irreversible.
Functions such as supervision will require years to recover. The procurement process requires years to recover. So, all of these functions are intertwined. If you shut them down, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm.
Gupta claimed that if the court had not issued a consent order on Feb. 14 temporarily blocking the terminations and deletions, the Trump administration would have abolished the CFPB that same day.
“They were poised to take steps until we were able to work out a deal with the Justice Department to affect the cancellation of permanent information contracts that would inhibit — not just inhibit, completely impair — the bureau’s functioning,” Mr. Gupta said. “I believe it is undeniable that those decisions result in irreparable harm. “They cannot be undone.”
Jackson expressed concern that the CFPB would be brought to its knees before she could issue her final judgment.
“What we’re talking about is interim oversight to make sure that it hasn’t been choked out of its very existence before I get to rule on the merits,” Jackson said, to which a DOJ attorney responded: “I think we respectfully disagree.”
Jackson told the lawyer that she “appreciates the fact” that the government is telling her “there’s nothing to worry about,” but she is skeptical.
“How can that possibly be square with the directive to do no work at all?” Jackson asked. “Saying those words and then mouthing the words, ‘Unless required by law,’ really doesn’t matter unless the people who are supposed to do that work have actually been told to do it.”
Gupta and the union claim that the Trump administration fired more than 70 employees in a “indiscriminate fashion.” The DOJ has attempted to portray the terminations as a “normal pause” and has instructed employees to return to work as of Feb. 27.
Employees, on the other hand, claim that while emails are being sent to them requesting their return, their superiors are not keeping their word on what is stated in them.
“The main issue for the government is that, according to the plaintiff, they are saying the right thing in the ‘to-all’ employee email, but then there is a side phone call to the head of each section saying, ‘Yea but tell them to stand down.
“Tell them to wait for more guidance,” Jackson said. “We cannot issue edicts with people’s fingers crossed behind their backs. It does not matter. It has no legally binding implications.”
Trump’s DOJ cited emails and claims from his administration, claiming that it wanted to improve the CFPB through widespread reforms that Trump promised to deliver to the American people during his 2024 campaign. However, DOJ lawyers avoided Jackson’s requests to explain how.
“I want an answer to the question,” Jackson demanded. “Has the head of the Office of Consumer Response been told that you can tell your employees to come to work or work from home? They are no longer on administrative leave. They’re working. They are answering the hotline and being paid. Is that true or false?
A DOJ lawyer replied, “That is correct. “Yes, they were told.”
Jackson replied, “OK?” And how should I know that?
The lawyer responded, “Our declarations that we will submit for the record.”
Jackson responded, “Well, I don’t think they’re disputing that he sent a broad email saying, ‘We’re going to do what’s best and absolutely necessary.'” They’re discussing whether that is being translated down to their level.”
Jackson ordered an evidentiary hearing next Monday, with testimony from Trump administration officials explaining whether employees are on administrative leave and whether work is being completed.
