Judge rules DHS plan for 50% FEMA staffing cut was unlawful

A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security unlawfully directed FEMA toward a fiscal 2026 staffing plan that would have reduced the agency to 11,383 employees—roughly half of its workforce at the time.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California granted labor groups partial summary judgment on their Administrative Procedure Act claims against DHS and FEMA in an order filed September 11, 2026. She denied the government’s cross-motion and ordered the parties to negotiate over the remedy.

The ruling does not mean FEMA has already been reduced to 11,383 employees. The court said the proposed 50% reduction was not fully carried out, and it did not permanently bar every future change to FEMA’s workforce.

What the judge decided

The case centers on whether DHS took control of personnel decisions that Congress assigned to FEMA and unlawfully directed the agency to cut its staffing.

Illston found that DHS officials directed FEMA to submit a fiscal 2026 staffing plan projecting 11,383 employees. The court said that action conflicted with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which established FEMA as a distinct entity within DHS, transferred FEMA’s functions and personnel to the agency, and limited DHS’s ability to reduce FEMA’s authorities, responsibilities or mission capability.

The court found that FEMA supervisors and the agency’s chief human capital officer did not recommend the 50% cut. Two contemporaneous staffing analyses based on information from FEMA program and regional offices projected a need for about 23,146 to 24,812 employees for fiscal 2026.

Instead, the court found evidence that the 11,383 figure came from DHS officials and that FEMA was later directed to work out how to reach it. Illston described the plan as arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

The ruling granted the plaintiffs’ motion on the APA claims involving DHS and FEMA personnel authority and the staffing plan. It declined to reach separate claims alleging that officials acted beyond their lawful authority.

CORE renewals remain disputed

FEMA’s CORE employees—short for Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees—are full-time temporary workers who support disaster response and recovery across incidents rather than being hired for only one emergency.

The court found that DHS changed the process for renewing CORE appointments in 2025. Historically, FEMA handled those renewals. DHS then required FEMA to submit justifications for renewals and continued to control the decisions.

Systematic non-renewals began January 1, 2026, and stopped after January 22. The court said there was no indication that FEMA was still systematically carrying out the staffing plan, but it found that DHS continued to control CORE renewals.

The court also said CORE employees were being renewed for six-month or one-year terms, shorter than the historical two-year terms and the more recent four-year terms. The ruling does not guarantee immediate reinstatement, back pay or renewal for every separated employee. Those questions remain part of the remedy dispute.

Why the decision matters

FEMA coordinates federal disaster response and recovery, supports state, tribal and territorial governments, administers assistance programs and manages preparedness and mitigation grants. A sustained loss of experienced personnel could affect the agency’s capacity, but the judge did not find that current disaster response has failed because of the challenged staffing actions.

An August report from the Government Accountability Office provides independent context. GAO found that more than 4,300 employees—about 17% of FEMA’s workforce—separated during fiscal 2025. The agency told GAO that the departures contributed to the loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel.

GAO also found that FEMA had rescinded its strategic plan and had not based its 2025 and 2026 workforce decisions on an assessment of whether the agency had enough staff to meet its statutory mission. That report did not decide whether the staffing plan was legal, but it highlighted the operational risks surrounding workforce reductions.

What the government argued

The administration argued that the labor groups’ requested relief was overbroad, would improperly constrain DHS’s oversight of FEMA and was not justified by a showing of irreparable harm. The court rejected the government’s cross-motion at this stage, but it has not yet issued the final scope of relief.

What happens next

Illston ordered the parties to meet and confer about the remedy. If they cannot agree, they must file a joint statement identifying the remaining relief issues by October 9, 2026. The judge said she would then rule on relief.

For people seeking disaster assistance, the ruling does not immediately change application procedures, eligibility rules or payment processes. The practical questions to watch are whether FEMA regains control over CORE renewals, whether separated employees receive additional relief and whether the administration pursues further workforce changes.

The decision also leaves Congress with an oversight question: how FEMA should assess mission capacity and plan its workforce before major reductions are attempted, especially when the agency may be needed during the next major emergency.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.