Judge temporarily blocks federal plan to relocate US Forest Service to Utah

SALT LAKE CITY — A plan to relocate the U.S. Forest Service headquarters to Utah has hit a snag.

A federal judge in California on Tuesday issued a temporary stay ordering the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, to stop any relocation or reassignment of employees amid a lawsuit over the planned move and several other changes that the agency announced earlier this year.

That includes prohibiting the agency from closing or eliminating offices, as well as relocating or reassigning employees to other areas. It applies to offices in both the Washington, D.C. area and other "local commuting" areas.

The stay lasts through Dec. 11, which is currently the final date before the current budget runs out and when "presumably Congress will consider a continuing resolution to keep the government running," U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria wrote in his 40-page ruling.

Chhabria made his decision after determining that the department was "reprogramming" federal funds in a way that Congress had not authorized.

"The law deems funds to be reprogrammed if an agency uses them for a purpose not contemplated by Congress at the time the appropriation was made," he wrote. "Congress did not contemplate USDA using its appropriated funds to shut down offices or relocate employees. To the contrary, Congress was actively working to restrict the agency's ability to do so."

The plan to relocate the U.S. Forest Service headquarters to Salt Lake City was included within a series of "sweeping restructuring" plans that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced in March.

It called for a new "state-based organizational model," featuring 15 state directors set up across the country to oversee operations in a state or a smaller cluster of states, by meeting with states, tribes and other key figures within their zones. It called for nine regional offices to be closed to accomplish that, while 23 research locations would also be shuttered.

At the same time, the U.S. Forest Service would be moved from the nation's capital to Utah's capital, setting up shop in the Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building in downtown Salt Lake City.

Such a move would move the agency's leaders closer to the forests that it manages and reduce costs, Rollins said at the time.

"Establishing a Western headquarters in Salt Lake City and streamlining how the Forest Service is organized will position the chief and operation leaders closer to the landscapes we manage and the people who depend on them," she added at the time.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox also called it a "big win" for both Utah and the West, saying it will create faster decision-making.

However, a group of unions and other organizations disagreed, filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California last month.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the nation's largest public service employees' labor union, led the group, seeking to stop what it argued was an "unlawful reorganization" of the agency because it lacked congressional approval.

Its lawsuit also applied to other Department of Agriculture programs that would be affected by a series of changes.

"Congress told USDA in plain language that it could not close offices and uproot its workforce without permission. USDA did it anyway, so (American Federation of Government Employees) and our partners took them to court," said Everett Kelley, president of the union, which is among the other plaintiffs.

"These forced moves were never about efficiency. They were about pushing experienced people out the door," he said on Tuesday, adding that Chhabria's ruling keeps employees at their jobs while the unions fight to "make sure this administration follows the law."

It's unclear if Chhabria's ruling will stop the Department of Agriculture's plans entirely.

"If USDA wishes to move forward with the now-stayed reorganization activities, it can ask Congress to change the language of the next appropriations statute, either to give USDA broader spending authority or to express disagreement with the severability analysis set forth in this ruling," he wrote.

Related topics