On April 17, the union representing CFPB employees filed a response in opposition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, opposing the government’s motion to modify the stay pending appeal to permit immediate implementation of a reduction-in-force (RIF) plan. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB moved on March 31 to modify the stay to permit it to carry out a RIF that would cut staff from 1,174 to 556, or alternatively, to obtain a limited 45-day remand to the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunction. In its response, the union stated it did not object to a limited remand but argued there was no basis for imposing an “arbitrary 45-day deadline,” emphasizing that the defendants waited over a year after the injunction was entered — and more than a month after en banc oral argument — to propose the new plan.

The union further argued that the D.C. Circuit should deny the defendants’ request to stay the injunction’s prohibition on mass terminations while the district court considers whether to modify it. Citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, the union contended that defendants were required to first seek such relief from the district court and had not shown it would be impracticable to do so. The union also maintained the defendants failed to satisfy the requirements for a stay, arguing they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that their year-long delay in proposing the RIF undermined any claim of urgency. The union asked the court to deny the stay and allow the district court to consider the defendants’ request in the first instance without an imposed deadline.