Blog: The Daily Intake
District Court Stays Planned USDA Reorganization
- On October 13, 2026, a California District Court stayed USDA’s planned reorganization, holding that the plans, which shut down program offices and relocate personnel, constituted unlawful “reprograming” of appropriated funds and exceeded USDA’s current statutory authority. We previously blogged about the filing of this case as well as certain elements of UDSA’s reorganization plan.
- The Court held that several provisions in the relevant appropriations bills prohibited USDA’s reorganizational efforts. For example, Section 716 of Pub. L. No. 119-37 barred reprogramming of funds. “Reprogramming” was defined as the “the utilization of funds in an appropriations account for purposes other than those contemplated at the time of appropriation.” Specific examples of such prohibited reprogramming included reduction in personnel (by at least 10%), reorganizing to establish new offices (with at least 5 personnel), or the closing of any existing Agricultural Research Service laboratories. Another appropriations statute (Pub. L. No. 199-74), which applied to USDA’s Forest Service, similarly restricted “reprogramming.” The term was similarly defined as “any significant departure from the program described in the agency’s budget justifications,” and included “all proposed reorganization or other workforce actions [affecting 10 staff or 10% of the staffing of a program].”
- The Court reviewed the record of USDA’s reorganizational actions and held that under both statutes USDA’s actions constituted reprogramming of funds. Both statutes did in fact permit reprogramming where permission for the reprogramming activity was granted from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, but this statutory language was held to be unconstitutional, a position that was not contested by either side (it proposed in essence a legislative amendment that did not go through the legislative process).
- It should be noted that “reprograming,” defined slightly differently in different statutes, but essentially reallocating funds from a single account for a purpose other than those contemplated by Congress, is generally permitted (in contrast with transferring funds to different appropriations accounts). However, the specific statutes at issue prohibited them.
- The Court also rejected the argument that it had authority to offer only relief to the Plaintiffs and not everyone affected by the challenged government action (universal relief). It held that Section 706 of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was not so limited and authorizes a court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action,” when it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” The Court reasoned that a universal stay was necessary to ensure that final relief under Section 706 could ultimately be granted.
- We will continue to monitor and report on this case and USDA’s reorganization efforts.