On April 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order reinstating a preliminary injunction against the CFPB’s proposed reduction in force (RIF). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had initially granted the plaintiffs, including the union representing CFPB employees, a preliminary injunction a month earlier, on March 28, which sought to prevent Acting Director Russell Vought and other defendants from terminating CFPB employees, except for cause related to performance. The U.S. Court of Appeals then instituted a partial stay to the preliminary injunction, thereby permitting termination of employees based on a “particularized assessment,” that they were unnecessary for the performance of the CFPB’s statutory duties. In the wake of the stay, the defendants initiated a RIF affecting 90 percent of the CFPB’s employees. However, the partial stay allowing terminations was reversed sua sponte by the April 28 order. In reinstating the full injunction on further terminations, the U.S. Court of Appeals specified that a “particularized assessment” means determining that each CFPB division could still fulfill its statutory duties without the employees selected for termination. It also highlighted that the parties disagree over whether particularized assessments can be subject to judicial review and, rather than continue collateral litigation on that issue, concluded that restoring the injunction would ensure that CFPB employees “can receive meaningful final relief should the [CFPB] not prevail…”
[View source.]
