U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria blocked the Department of Agriculture from executing a nationwide reorganization involving 2,600 employee relocations and office closures across agencies like the Forest Service. Ruling in a lawsuit brought by federal unions and non-profits, Chhabria determined the agency unlawfully reprogrammed fiscal 2026 appropriations, risking severe staffing losses and disruptions to crucial trade and nutrition programs.
Rulings on the USDA stay
- ▪U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria issued a stay on October 13, 2026, indefinitely blocking the Department of Agriculture from proceeding with its nationwide agency reorganization plan
- ▪Judge Vince Chhabria's court stay permits internal reassignments within the Washington, D.C. region but does not force the Department of Agriculture to return employees relocated prior to September 14, 2026
- ▪Judge Vince Chhabria's judicial order explicitly halts office closures across component agencies including the Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, and Food and Nutrition Administration
Legal grounds for the injunction
- ▪Provisions in the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill for USDA prohibited Department of Agriculture officials from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without approval from House and Senate appropriations committees
- ▪Judge Vince Chhabria concluded that while the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill's committee-approval mechanism was unconstitutional, Congress explicitly intended to restrict the Department of Agriculture's reorganization spending
- ▪Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture impermissibly reprogrammed congressional funds to execute office closures and employee relocations affecting 2,600 employees
Scope and impact of proposed relocations
- ▪The Department of Agriculture's proposed nationwide reorganization sought to relocate approximately 2,600 employees from the Washington, D.C. area to new locations across the country
- ▪Judge Vince Chhabria noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to provide analysis showing that risks from employee departures were outweighed by potential taxpayer benefits
Story comments
Loading comments…