USDA Asks a Judge to Lift the Hold on Its Employee Relocations: What the October 13 Order Covers

Bottom line

The Justice Department asked Judge Vince Chhabria on October 30 to set aside, while it appeals, his order halting USDA office closures and forced relocations ^[2]. It asked for a ruling by Friday, November 6 ^[5]. Until he acts, employees at eight USDA components who hold relocation letters do not have to report, and USDA may not issue new ones ^[1]. The plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 4 ^[6].

What happened

The order. On October 13, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a stay under 5 U.S.C. 705 in a suit brought by AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE, NTEU, local governments and nonprofits ^[1]. The court’s reasoning rests on appropriations law, not personnel law. Section 716(a) of the fiscal 2026 agriculture appropriations act bars USDA from reprogramming funds to relocate an office or employees, or to reorganize, unless the Appropriations Committees approve in advance ^[1]. Section 421 of the Interior act imposes a similar rule on the Forest Service ^[1]. Both sides agreed the committee-approval language is unconstitutional; the court held that what survives is the prohibition itself ^[1]. “It is overwhelmingly likely that USDA’s planned closures and relocations violate Congress’s express restrictions on those activities,” the judge wrote, adding that the court “has no view on whether USDA’s planned reorganization is a good idea or a bad one” ^[1].

The plans at stake are large. USDA intends to close all seven Food and Nutrition Administration regional offices, which the court said could affect up to 870 of roughly 1,200 employees there ^[1]. It plans to move the Forest Service headquarters from Washington to Salt Lake City and close all nine regional offices ^[1]. Government Executive reports that about 2,600 USDA employees are slated for relocation ^[8].

The order bars closing offices and relocating employees outside the local commuting area, “including by issuing or enforcing” management directed reassignment letters and their deadlines ^[1]. It borrows its definition of local commuting area from 5 CFR 351.203, the reduction-in-force regulations discussed in the August 3 memo ^[1]. The government filed a notice of appeal on October 15 ^[2]. The Ninth Circuit set USDA’s opening brief for November 13 and the plaintiffs’ answering brief for December 11 ^[7].

The motion. The government’s new filing says the stay “significantly hinders USDA’s operations across the board” and that new declaration testimony “tilts the balance of the stay factors in Defendants’ favor” ^[2]. The judge had already refused a stay pending appeal at the September 29 argument ^[2].

Two declarations carry the argument. Forest Service Chief Thomas Schultz says 25 fire management officer and assistant positions are vacant, that those posts are usually filled by voluntary reassignment, and that “the order limits our ability to fill the permanent positions including supervisors and other key management officials for wildland fire and prescribed fire” ^[3]. He says 10 avalanche center leads will likely not be in place this season ^[3]. He also says the agency expected no more than 250 Forest Service employees, about 0.78 percent, to receive a reassignment requiring relocation ^[3].

Under Secretary Scott Hutchins says the research mission area sent letters to 609 of its 5,748 employees, and that 135 ARS, 59 Economic Research Service, 84 National Agricultural Statistics Service and 114 National Institute of Food and Agriculture employees accepted ^[4]. He says about 30 Agricultural Research Service employees whose Beltsville projects lost funding “are at risk of discontinued employment” if they cannot move ^[4].

The answer. The plaintiffs argue the motion is an unauthorized request for reconsideration, and that much of the declarations was “copied word-for-word” from an earlier USDA declaration ^[6]. Their main point is about the order’s text: paragraph 4 already allows reassignments an employee applied for, if they are unrelated to the reorganization ^[6]. They call USDA’s reading a “mischaracterization of the Court’s Order as preventing all voluntary relocations” ^[6]. They also say that on October 28 USDA sent relocation notices to at least two Natural Resources Conservation Service employees, then issued corrected notices after the plaintiffs’ counsel objected ^[6].

What it means for you

If you hold a relocation letter at a covered component. The stay applies to the Forest Service, ARS, the Food and Nutrition Administration, the Research, Education, and Economics mission area, the Foreign Agricultural Service, Rural Development, Farm Production and Conservation, the Office of the General Counsel and the Civil Rights office ^[1]. The deadline in your letter cannot be enforced while the order stands ^[1]. Readers should note the word “while.” A ruling for the government, from Judge Chhabria or the Ninth Circuit, would let USDA resume enforcement, and the filings do not say what new report dates would follow ^{[2, 6]}. The plaintiffs say a stay would mean “the immediate relocation of hundreds of employees” who already have letters ^[6]. Keep the letter and any later notice changing it.

If you are in the Washington area. Moves within the National Capital Region are expressly allowed ^[1].

If you want a transfer that has nothing to do with the reorganization. The text allows it: apply through USAJobs or an internal merit process, be selected, accept, and the move must be “unrelated to the reorganization activities stayed” ^[1]. The Forest Service chief nonetheless wrote that the order “limits reassigning employees, even when it is initiated by the employee” ^[3]. Government Executive reported an employee whose unrelated move was put on hold ^[8]. The two readings conflict, and the court has not said which is right. Who decides “unrelated” is the open question.

If you moved, or started moving, this fall. Employees who began work at the new station before September 14 stay there, and their relocation payments may continue ^[1]. Hutchins describes about 43 research employees who were mid-move on that date, some in temporary housing the agency says it cannot extend ^[4]. The plaintiffs say they would not oppose a clarification letting people who finished moving before October 13 choose either station ^[6]. No such clarification had been filed as of this memo.

If you are a Beltsville researcher on a defunded project. USDA says retention options “will soon expire” ^[4]. The plaintiffs say open positions at Beltsville fit those researchers and that Congress did not defund specific projects ^[6]. That factual dispute is before the court.

On job security generally. USDA told the court that “[a]ll current USDA employees will have a position in the Department” and that it “has no current plans to conduct any Reductions in Force” ^[1]. That statement is in the record. It is not a court finding, and a position offered elsewhere is still a position elsewhere.

Contractors. None of the filings address contractor work at the affected offices ^{[1, 2, 6]}.

• Whether the judge rules by November 6, as the government asked ^[5].
• Whether the government will seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit if the motion is denied ^{[2, 7]}.
• What USDA meant when, according to the plaintiffs’ filing, Secretary Rollins said “We are full bore ahead in the reorganization” ^[6]. A USDA spokesperson told Government Executive the department “is complying with the court order” ^[8].

Questions you’re probably asking

Do I have to report to my new duty station if I got a USDA relocation letter?

Not while the October 13 order stands. It bars USDA from issuing or enforcing management directed reassignment letters at the eight covered components, including the deadlines in those letters ^[1]. The research mission area says its September 21 and October 5 report dates were suspended ^[4].

Did the court lift the stay on USDA relocations?

Not as of November 4. The government asked the judge to rule by November 6, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 4 ^{[5, 6]}. The judge had earlier denied a stay pending appeal at the September 29 argument ^[2].

Can USDA employees still take a voluntary reassignment outside their commuting area?

The order allows a reassignment when the employee applied through USAJobs or an internal merit process, was selected and accepted, and the move is unrelated to the stayed reorganization ^[1]. The Forest Service reads the order as limiting even employee-initiated reassignments; the plaintiffs call that a misreading ^{[3, 6]}.

What happens to USDA employees who already moved?

Employees who began work at a new duty station before September 14 do not have to be sent back, and USDA may still pay their relocation incentives and entitlements ^[1]. USDA says about 43 research employees were mid-move on that date, and the plaintiffs say they would not oppose a clarification covering people who finished moving before October 13 ^{[4, 6]}.

Which USDA agencies does the relocation stay cover?

The Forest Service, the Agricultural Research Service, the Food and Nutrition Administration, the Research, Education, and Economics mission area, the Foreign Agricultural Service, Rural Development, Farm Production and Conservation, the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ^[1]. Moves within the National Capital Region are not blocked ^[1].

What I’m watching

• November 6, 2026: The date the government asked the court to rule on its stay motion ^[5].
• November 13, 2026: USDA’s opening brief due in the Ninth Circuit, No. 26-6855 ^[7].
• December 11, 2026: The plaintiffs’ Ninth Circuit answering brief is due, the same date the order says the appropriations restrictions are set to expire ^{[1, 7]}.