US Forest Service Reorganization Lawsuit, Federal Judge Blocks USDA Office Closures and Employee Relocations

On October 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) granted a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 in AFGE v. USDA, Case No. 3:26-cv-09976-VC. While the lawsuit continues, USDA cannot close or eliminate Forest Service offices or relocate Forest Service employees, positions or functions outside their local commuting area. The order is temporary. It awards no money, and it does not permanently cancel the move of Forest Service headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah.

Forest Service Reorganization Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture, et al.
Case number	3:26-cv-09976-VC (Dkt. No. 107 is the stay order)
Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Judge	Vince Chhabria
Defendants	U.S. Department of Agriculture and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins
Lead plaintiffs	AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE and NTEU, joined by local governments and nonprofits
Order date	October 13, 2026
Type of relief	Stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 (temporary, while the case is pending)
Main legal ground	USDA is likely violating appropriations restrictions on “reprogramming” funds to reorganize
Forest Service changes blocked	Office closures or eliminations; relocations or reassignments outside the local commuting area, including management-directed reassignment (MDR) letters and their deadlines
Money for employees?	No
Claim form or settlement?	None. This is not a class action settlement
Appropriations restrictions expire	December 11, 2026, unless Congress changes them

1. What Did Judge Chhabria Order in AFGE v. USDA on October 13, 2026?

Judge Chhabria granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The order covers the Forest Service and seven other USDA components, and it stops the challenged office closures and out-of-area relocations while the case proceeds.

His reasoning, in short:

• USDA is “almost certainly” using appropriated funds for office closures and relocations that Congress did not contemplate when it passed the spending bills. In appropriations law, that is called reprogramming.
• Congress restricted reprogramming for reorganizations in Section 716(a) of Pub. L. No. 119-37 (USDA generally) and Section 421 of Pub. L. No. 119-74 (Forest Service).
• Both provisions let the House and Senate Appropriations Committees approve exceptions. Both sides agreed that clause is unconstitutional. The judge severed it, which leaves the prohibition standing.
• The judge said he took no position on whether the reorganization is good policy. The ruling is about whether USDA may spend these funds this way without Congress.

This is a preliminary ruling. It finds the plaintiffs likely to succeed. It does not finally decide the case.

2. What Does the Court Order Block at the U.S. Forest Service?

For the Forest Service, USDA and Secretary Rollins are stayed from:

1. Closing or eliminating offices.
2. Relocating or reassigning employees, positions or functions to new locations outside the local commuting area. This includes issuing or enforcing MDR letters or any other reassignment notice, and any deadlines in those letters.

“Local commuting area” has the meaning in 5 C.F.R. § 351.203: the area where people can reasonably be expected to travel back and forth daily to their usual employment.

What the order does not block

• Relocations or reassignments within the National Capital Region, and closing National Capital Region offices once all employees have been reassigned locally.
• A reassignment where an employee applies through USAJobs or another internal merit-hiring process, is selected and accepts, if unrelated to the stayed reorganization.
• “Offices” does not include locations that were already empty of staff when USDA sent its congressional notification letter (April or June 2026).
• Employees who began work at a new duty station before the first administrative stay on September 14, 2026 are not ordered back, and associated relocation incentives are not barred.

Notice and compliance deadlines

USDA had to notify affected employees and unions within two business days (by email, and by posting the order on its reorganization website). It had to file a compliance declaration within seven business days.

3. What Is USDA’s Reorganization Plan for the Forest Service?

According to the court’s summary of USDA’s own documents, the Forest Service plan includes:

• Headquarters: moving from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah.
• Regional offices: closing all nine, with functions shifted to 15 state offices and a network of operational service centers. USDA has said employees at three regional offices would not be moved outside their commuting areas.
• Research: closing 23 research and development facilities and centralizing research in one organization based in Fort Collins, Colorado. Employees at those facilities would not be required to move outside their commuting areas.
• Scale: the Forest Service stewards 193 million acres across 154 National Forests and 20 National Grasslands, including wildfire prevention and response.

In March 2026 the Forest Service sent letters to more than 6,000 employees saying they were being considered for mandatory relocation. The plaintiffs’ evidence put the number at about 6,500. USDA estimated, as of September 14, 2026, that at most 250 Forest Service employees would actually be relocated outside their commuting area. The court noted the real number remained unclear.

USDA’s department-wide reorganization was announced in summer 2025. The agency has since stated that all current employees will have a position and that it has no current plans for reductions in force.

4. Which Laws Does the Forest Service Reorganization Lawsuit Involve?

Appropriations restrictions: Section 716(a), Section 421 and related provisions

• Section 716(a), Pub. L. No. 119-37, Div. B (139 Stat. 495, 544): bars USDA from using funds through a reprogramming that relocates an office or employees or reorganizes offices, programs or activities, without notice to and approval from both Appropriations Committees at least 30 days in advance.
• Section 421, Pub. L. No. 119-74, Div. C (140 Stat. 5, 163): bars reprogramming Forest Service funds without committee notification and approval. Its incorporated Reprogramming Guidelines treat office closures, consolidations and relocations affecting 10 staff members or 10 percent of an office or program (whichever is less) as reprogramming.
• Other provisions the court cited: Section 716(b) and (d) (staffing cuts and new offices), Section 771 (Agricultural Research Service lab closures) and Section 779 (Natural Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development field offices). Section 721 required an obligation plan that the court said is not public.
• Extension: a continuing resolution, Pub. L. No. 119-103, Div. A, §§ 101, 103, 106, extended the restrictions to December 11, 2026.

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706

Section 706(2) lets a court set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious or “not in accordance with law.” Section 705 lets a court postpone agency action or preserve the status quo while review is pending. The stay standard matches a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest.

The court rested the stay on the “contrary to law” claim. In a footnote it added that the plaintiffs also raised serious questions on their arbitrary-and-capricious claim, because USDA had not shown it considered how relocation-driven attrition would affect its statutory functions.

Separation of powers: INS v. Chadha

The committee-approval clauses let two committees grant exceptions without passage by both chambers and presentment to the President. Under INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), that is unconstitutional legislative action. The judge applied severability principles from United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Alaska Airlines v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678 (1987), and National Mining Ass’n v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2017). He concluded Congress would have wanted the default prohibition to remain, because it tightened these provisions from notice-only to notice-and-approval after earlier USDA reorganizations.

Scope of the stay: Trump v. CASA

USDA argued the stay should protect only employees represented by the union plaintiffs, citing Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). The judge disagreed. He held that Section 705 allows interim relief as broad as the final relief available under Section 706, and that a partial stay would force USDA to fund duplicate offices.

5. Why Did the Court Reject USDA’s Jurisdiction Arguments?

USDA raised five threshold defenses. The court rejected all of them:

USDA argument	Court’s answer
No final agency action (APA)	Closures and relocations were final: USDA told Congress, published plans, sent relocation letters with reporting deadlines, and began bargaining. The challenge targets discrete decisions, not a “programmatic” overhaul (Norton v. SUWA).
Civil Service Reform Act preclusion	The MSPB and FLRA cannot hear structural challenges like this one (AFGE v. Trump, 139 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2025); Axon v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023)).
Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341	It is an internal executive-branch compliance scheme, not a bar to APA review.
Committed to agency discretion, 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)	Appropriations riders limit discretion (Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993)).
Authority under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953	Even if it authorizes reorganization, later spending restrictions control.

6. Why Did the Judge Find Irreparable Harm and Public Risk?

• Employees: forced relocations leave many workers a choice between moving far from home or losing wages and health benefits. The judge found back pay cannot repair gaps in income, health care and child care.
• Imminence: relocation letters carried reporting deadlines as early as September 21, 2026.
• Public interest: the judge said there is no public interest in allowing violations of federal law, and he pointed to wildfire prevention and response as functions at risk.
• USDA’s claimed harm: costs of dual facilities and union agreements were largely self-inflicted, and the agency had already delayed implementation by several months.

7. How Did the Case Reach the October 13 Ruling?

Date	Development
Summer 2025	USDA announces its department-wide reorganization roadmap
March 2026	Forest Service sends relocation-consideration letters to more than 6,000 employees
September 2, 2026	Judge Susan Illston lets the USDA claims proceed as a separate lawsuit rather than joining a broader workforce case
September 8, 2026	Coalition files Case No. 3:26-cv-09976-VC in the Northern District of California
September 14, 2026	Court issues an initial administrative stay
October 13, 2026	Judge Chhabria grants the Section 705 stay (Dkt. No. 107)
December 11, 2026	Appropriations restrictions at issue are set to expire under the continuing resolution

8. Who Are the Plaintiffs and Defendants in AFGE v. USDA?

Union plaintiffs (named in the order): the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) and National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). They represent employees at eight USDA components, including the Forest Service.

Other plaintiffs: local governments and nonprofit and scientific organizations joined the coalition, including Western Watersheds Project. Democracy Forward is reported as lead public-interest counsel. Check the docket for the full plaintiff list.

Defendants: the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Secretary Brooke Rollins, in her official capacity.

The eight covered components: Forest Service; Food and Nutrition Administration; Research, Education, and Economics mission area (including the Agricultural Research Service and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center); Foreign Agricultural Service; Rural Development; Farm Production and Conservation; Office of the General Counsel; and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

9. What Should Forest Service Employees Do Now?

Action Box: If you received a Forest Service relocation or reassignment letter

1. Read the official notice. USDA had to send the order to affected employees and unions, and post it on its reorganization website.
2. Check whether your situation is covered. The stay covers moves outside your local commuting area. National Capital Region moves, unrelated merit-based reassignments and moves completed before September 14, 2026 are treated differently.
3. Do not assume the original deadline is dead for every purpose. The stay bars enforcing MDR letters and their deadlines for covered moves while it is in effect, but it is temporary.
4. Contact your union representative (AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE or NTEU) or an employment lawyer about your specific facts.
5. Watch the docket for Case No. 3:26-cv-09976-VC and for any appeal or modification.

The order gives employees no back pay, damages or settlement payment, and there is no claim form to file.

10. What Happens Next After December 11, 2026?

The judge wrote that the stay’s practical duration “could end up being quite short,” because the spending restrictions expire December 11, 2026. If USDA wants to proceed, it can ask Congress to change the language of the next appropriations measure. Congress could also restate the restrictions. December 11 is not a scheduled final judgment date, and it does not automatically end the court’s order.

The court has not yet ruled on the merits under Section 706. As of October 21, 2026, I did not locate a public ruling after the October 13 order. Readers should check the docket for later filings, including any appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

11. How Does This Compare With Other Federal Agency Lawsuits?

Courts are reviewing a range of federal agency actions under the APA. These cases involve different agencies, plaintiffs and statutes, and they are not part of the Forest Service litigation. Related coverage on this site:

• Duluth Public Schools vs. DHS, ICE School Enforcement Lawsuit
• F-1 Students Face CPT Uncertainty As Universities Sue DHS
• Authors Guild vs. National Endowment for the Humanities, DOGE Humanities Grant Cuts Ruled Unconstitutional

Frequently Asked Questions

Did a federal judge block the Forest Service headquarters move to Salt Lake City?

Yes, temporarily. The October 13, 2026 stay bars relocating Forest Service employees, positions or functions outside their local commuting area, and closing or eliminating offices, while the case continues. It is not a permanent ruling that the move can never happen.

What law did USDA likely violate according to Judge Chhabria?

The court found USDA was likely violating appropriations restrictions on reprogramming funds: Section 716(a) of Pub. L. No. 119-37 and Section 421 of Pub. L. No. 119-74. The claim is brought under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

Is this an “administrative stay” or a preliminary injunction?

The September 14, 2026 order was an initial administrative stay. The October 13 order is a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705, which the judge described as preliminary injunctive relief pending the case. The Section 705 standard is the same as for a preliminary injunction.

Are Forest Service employees still required to relocate?

For covered moves outside the local commuting area, USDA is stayed from issuing or enforcing relocation letters and deadlines. Exceptions exist for National Capital Region moves, unrelated merit-based reassignments and employees who began at new duty stations before September 14, 2026.

How many Forest Service employees were affected?

More than 6,000 received letters in March 2026 (the plaintiffs’ evidence put it near 6,500). USDA estimated at most 250 would be relocated outside their commuting area as of September 14, 2026.

Does the ruling award money to Forest Service employees?

No. The order provides no back pay, damages or settlement. It temporarily stops covered reorganization spending.

Is there a claim form for the Forest Service lawsuit?

No. This is an administrative-law case, not a class action settlement.

Who is suing the USDA?

Four federal unions (AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE and NTEU) lead the case, with local governments and nonprofit organizations.

Will the stay end on December 11, 2026?

Not automatically. December 11 is when the appropriations restrictions are set to expire under the continuing resolution. Whether the stay changes depends on Congress and the court.

Can USDA appeal?

Yes, the government may seek review in the Ninth Circuit. I did not verify an appeal filing as of October 21, 2026. Check the docket.

Official Sources and Court Records

1. Order Granting Motion for Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. No. 107 (Oct. 13, 2026) — the court’s reasoning and the full list of exceptions.
2. Federal Docket, Case No. 3:26-cv-09976-VC — filings and later orders.
3. U.S. Forest Service Reorganization Page — the agency’s public updates.
4. USDA Reorganization Website — where the court required USDA to post the order.
5. Reuters: Federal Judge Blocks Planned US Farm Agency Reorganization (Oct. 14, 2026) — news coverage of the ruling.

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. The October 13 order is temporary relief and does not decide every claim in the case.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the court’s written Order Granting Motion for Stay (Dkt. No. 107, Oct. 13, 2026) in Case No. 3:26-cv-09976-VC, as of October 21, 2026. Last Updated: October 21, 2026.