A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration can continue its widespread dismissals of federal employees for the time being. This decision came as a response to a request from a coalition of labor unions seeking to stop Donald Trump’s significant reduction of the roughly 2.3 million federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling in the Washington DC federal court is a temporary measure as the legal proceedings unfold. This outcome represents a victory for the Trump administration, which aims to eliminate what it perceives as excessive and fraudulent government expenditures.

Last week, the National Treasury Employees Union, along with four other unions, filed a lawsuit to prevent the administration from terminating hundreds of thousands of federal employees and offering buyouts to those who choose to resign voluntarily.

The unions are attempting to stop mass layoffs at eight agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

On Thursday, Judge Cooper indicated that he likely lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, suggesting instead that the unions should direct their complaints to a federal labor board that handles disputes between unions and federal agencies.

In a significant move, Trump has appointed Tesla CEO Elon Musk to oversee a “Department of Government Efficiency,” dubbed “Doge.” Since Trump’s inauguration, this initiative has aggressively targeted federal agencies, resulting in thousands of job cuts and a revamp of federal programs as part of Trump’s substantial government restructuring plans. Additionally, federal agencies were instructed to collaborate closely with Doge to identify employees who could be terminated.

Termination notices were dispatched last week to federal workers, focusing primarily on newly hired employees still within their probation period across various agencies, including the Department of Education, Small Business Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, General Services Administration, and more.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including the United Auto Workers, National Treasury Employees Union, and the National Federation of Federal Employees, contend that the White House’s actions, particularly through Doge, to reduce the federal workforce violate the principles of separation of powers by undermining Congress’s authority to allocate funds to federal agencies.

The unions further argue that without judicial intervention, they will suffer irreparable damage from lost dues from members who were either terminated or opted for early retirement to accept buyouts.

Most civil service employees can only be dismissed for underperformance or misconduct, and they possess several due process and appeal rights if terminated without cause. However, the employees primarily targeted in last week’s layoffs have fewer legal safeguards.

In a related case in a Boston federal court, a judge recently permitted buyouts to proceed, stating on February 12 that the unions lacked legal standing to sue as they failed to demonstrate how they would be adversely affected by the plan.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the window for accepting buyouts has now closed, with approximately 75,000 employees taking advantage of the administration’s offer, equating to about 3% of the entire federal workforce.

The unions are requesting the judge to deem the dismissals and buyouts unlawful and to prohibit the government from terminating additional employees or initiating new rounds of buyouts.

In a court submission on Monday, the government asserted that the unions lack the standing to sue since they would not be negatively affected by the firings and buyouts. It also argued that granting the unions’ request would unjustly interfere with the president’s initiatives to streamline the federal workforce.

More than 70 lawsuits have been filed aiming to stop Trump’s initiatives to transform the federal workforce, tighten immigration controls, and rescind transgender rights.

Results have been mixed to date, though some aspects of Trump’s prominent policies, such as the attempt to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S., have faced judicial setbacks.