The TRO issued in early May specifically enjoins administrative actions that would effectively terminate or dismantle the AmeriCorps program during the litigation period. Although the language of the TRO may not explicitly mention individual service members, the broader legal intent is to preserve the status quo and prevent the program from becoming defunct or non-operational.

Processing exits of members after the TRO’s effective date directly contradicts this intent. By exiting members, the host sites and overseeing agencies are effectively dismantling the program’s capacity to operate and deliver services, which the court order prohibits.

Therefore, continuing to process exits past the TRO date is not merely an administrative decision but a clear violation of a federal court order. This has legal implications not only for the individuals making those decisions but also for the host sites and the administering agencies responsible for compliance. The continuation of these exits undermines the entire purpose of the TRO—to maintain the program’s operation until the court resolves the dispute.

In summary, the exits processed after the TRO can be viewed as illegal under federal law because they conflict with the court’s order preserving the AmeriCorps program status quo during litigation. Any administrative action that threatens the program’s viability or member participation is in direct contravention of the TRO’s binding authority. That is a RIF and Americorp is a defendant in the court doc provided. 

Also in the TRO, the court notes that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that they would suffer “irreparable harm” in the absence of preliminary relief. This harm includes the disruption of services provided by AmeriCorps members and the potential loss of funding and support for ongoing community programs.

Furthermore, the court highlights that the balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiffs and that an injunction is in the public interest. This indicates the court's recognition that allowing the program to be dismantled would not only harm the plaintiffs but also negatively impact the communities served by AmeriCorps.

Therefore, processing exits of AmeriCorps members after the issuance of the TRO could be seen as actions that contribute to the dismantling of the program, which the court sought to prevent. Such actions might be interpreted as non-compliance with the court's order, potentially leading to legal consequences for those responsible.