Ag Policy Blog

WASHINGTON (DTN) -- The USDA reorganization has been temporarily paused until Oct. 13 as a federal judge considers an injunction that could prevent the relocation of about 2,600 USDA employees to regional hubs.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California is the newest court handling the USDA reorganization challenge. According to court documents, he is currently evaluating whether USDA must comply with statutory language in Congress' appropriations law requiring congressional committee approval for certain agency reorganizations.

By Oct. 7, both parties must submit proposed language outlining the impacts of an injunction if Chhabria grants one.

This marks the third court challenge to the USDA reorganization, which has already relocated one USDA agency into another office, the Food and Nutrition Service, and has 200 employees currently in the process of moving with relocation notices.

The case was filed Sept. 8 after U.S. District Judge Illston declined to add proposed new claims about the USDA reorganization to an existing multiagency case, saying those claims should be filed as a separate action.

See, "District Court Rejects USDA Reorganization Motion, Unions Refile," https://www.dtnpf.com/….

Deputy Secretary Steven Vaden said in an interview with Brownfield last week, "I know there are legal efforts afoot to try to stop us. We may have to go up to the appellate level. But just like with the other efforts to stop the American government from working more efficiently on behalf of the American taxpayer, these legal efforts will fail as well."

Vaden and the Justice Department have indicated they are prepared to seek an appeal if Chhabria issues an injunction. The case would likely go to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"If I issue a preliminary injunction, I'm not going to stay it ... If you want to rush to the Ninth Circuit to get a stay or whatever, you need to be ready to do that," Chhabria said during a Sept. 29 hearing, according to court transcripts first reported by Government Executive.

So far, the Trump administration paid $9.5 billion in salary costs for federal employees on paid administrative leave in 2025, including $6.7 billion associated with the deferred resignation program, according to a Government Accountability Office report. USDA accounted for about $737 million of those administrative leave costs.

The GAO report does not attribute USDA's administrative leave costs specifically to the reorganization. The agency has maintained that reducing its workforce and relocating employees are separate goals.

Previous reporting and polling by DTN showed that nearly one-third of respondents support the reorganization, while another third said it was too early to tell whether the changes will be effective.

See more at "USDA Expedites Reorganization, Some Farmers on Board with Plan," https://www.dtnpf.com/….

From Agriculture Research Service researchers to Natural Resource Conservation Service employees, USDA has responded to public concerns about a lack of field staffing by reinstating employees and setting rehiring goals after workforce reductions. Since DTN's "Inside a USDA Staffing Shortage" story, disputed staffing cuts at local FSA offices in Wisconsin and Iowa have been reversed.

DEBATING CHECKS AND BALANCES

The dispute in the U.S. district court is whether USDA can reorganize its existing authority or whether Congress restricted that authority through the fiscal 2026 appropriations law.

Bipartisan appropriators included spending restrictions and committee approval requirements for USDA reorganizations in the fiscal 2026 Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill. The House Appropriations Committee approved the bill 35-27, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved it unanimously, 27-0. Congress later passed the full-year appropriations bill as part of a broader "minibus" package on Nov. 12, 2025.

But USDA maintains, "The agency has not considered itself bound to accept congressional approval in order to proceed," according to a Sept. 28 court document.

USDA attorneys point to the 2018 relocation of the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City as precedent for proceeding after notifying Congress without obtaining committee approval.

Additionally, the agency's lawyers say the funding wasn't reprogrammed. "To date, the Department has not reprogrammed any funding or otherwise invoked those specific transfer authorities in a manner that triggers the Congressional notice obligations," Department of Justice attorneys wrote.

But plaintiffs counter that USDA's history shows Congress has treated the approval requirement as meaningful.

In 2018, USDA received approval for the creation of the Farm Production and Conservation mission area, while Congress rejected its Rural Development restructuring. Congress also objected to the ERS/NIFA relocation, with USDA's inspector general later finding the move violated the appropriations law. In 2024, USDA abandoned a proposed Rural Business-Cooperative Service reorganization after congressional committees declined to approve it.

Plaintiffs argue the history shows USDA has generally complied when Congress withheld approval, rather than treating the provision as notice-only.

The dispute puts the court at the center of a broader question over Congressional authority over USDA's organization and spending.

If Chhabria issues a preliminary injunction, the administration could seek a stay from an appellate court while the case proceeds. Congress also could address the reorganization through future appropriations legislation coming in December.

For additional information, see:

-- GAO Report on 2025 Paid Administrative Leave: https://www.gao.gov/…

-- Plaintiffs, Unions Sept. 28 Court Brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/…

-- Defense, DOJ's Sept. 28 Court Brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/…

Jake Zajkowski can be reached at jake.zajkowski@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @jzajkow

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.