Days before the Trump administration was expected to respond to a lawsuit filed in California challenging its targeting of gender-affirming health care providers, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge to temporarily halt the proceedings.
Given the federal government shutdown, they argued, they simply didn’t have the lawyers to do the job.
“Justice Department attorneys and employees of federal defendants are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ’emergencies involving the safety of human life or protection of property,’” they wrote in their filing on Oct. 1, the first day of the shutdown.
The district judge presiding over the case, which California filed in federal court in Massachusetts with a coalition of other Democratic-led states, agreed and quickly granted the request.
It’s just one example of the weeks-old federal shutdown that has halted major litigation between California and the Trump administration in political battles with major implications for people’s lives.
On the same day, in the same Massachusetts court, Justice Department lawyers won a break in a lawsuit in which California and other states challenge mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Education, after noting that funding for the department had been suspended and it was unclear “when that funding will be restored by Congress.”
The same day, in U.S. District Court in Central California, the Trump administration requested a similar pause in a lawsuit it filed against California, challenging the state’s refusal to provide the administration with its voter rolls.
Justice Department lawyers wrote that they “greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and other litigants,” but that they had to suspend proceedings until they were “allowed to resume their usual civil litigation duties.”
Since then, the Central California court has advised the parties of alternative dispute resolution options and outside groups – including the NAACP – have filed motions to intervene in the case, but no major developments have occurred.
The pauses in litigation — just a portion of those that occurred in courts across the country — were an example of the far-reaching, real, and high-stakes effects of the federal government shutdown that average Americans may not consider when thinking about the shutdown’s impact on their lives.
Federal employees working in security and other crucial roles — such as air traffic controllers — have remained on the job, even without pay, but many others have been forced to stay home. The Justice Department did not say which of its lawyers had been benched before the shutdown, but made clear that some of those who worked on the cases in question no longer did so.
Federal disputes often take years to resolve, and brief pauses in proceedings are not uncommon. However, prolonged disruptions – such as those that could occur if the shutdown continues – would have detrimental consequences, preventing legal responses in some of the country’s most important political battles.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has sued the Trump administration more than 40 times since January, has not disputed all of the Trump administration’s demands for a pause — particularly in cases where the status quo favors the state.
However, he has challenged the breaks in other cases, with some success.
For example, in this same Massachusetts federal courthouse on October 1, Justice Department lawyers asked a judge to temporarily halt proceedings in a case in which California and other states are suing to block the administration’s targeted funding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
Their arguments were the same as in the other cases: given the shutdown, they did not have the lawyers needed to do the necessary legal work.
In response, lawyers for California and other states pushed back, pointing out that the shutdown did not stop Department of Health and Human Services officials from moving forward with the measure to defund Planned Parenthood — so state residents were at imminent risk of losing needed health care.
“The risks of irreparable harm are particularly high because it is unclear how long the credits will expire, meaning that relief may not be available for months, after which many health centers will likely be forced to close due to a lack of funds,” the states argued.
On October 8, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the government’s request for a pause, ruling that the states’ interest in pursuing the case “outweighs” the administration’s interest in suspending it.
Talwani’s argument, in part, was that his order denying a pause would give Justice Department officials the legal authority to continue litigating the case despite the shutdown.
Bonta said in a statement that “Trump is responsible for this shutdown” and “the devastation it is causing hardworking Americans,” adding that his office will not let Trump use it to cause even more harm by delaying help in court cases.
“We are not letting his administration use this shutdown as an excuse to continue implementing its illegal agenda unchecked. Until we get relief for Californians, we will not back down – and neither will the courts,” Bonta said. “We cannot wait for Trump to finally let our government reopen before these cases are heard.”
Trump and congressional Republicans blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
