A temporary order blocking the Trump administration from implementing a plan to buy out federal employees will stay in place as a federal judge weighs arguments delivered Monday in Boston.

The one-hour hearing on the so-called “Fork” directive ended abruptly with Senior District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., who previously paused the buyout plan, calling the court into recess without any indication of when to expect a more conclusive ruling.

Attorneys representing three federal employee unions and a Massachusetts local asked O’Toole to keep President Donald Trump’s administration from carrying out the buyout plan, alleging that it is “arbitrary and capricious” and unlawful.

Elena Goldstein, senior legal advisor with the Democracy Forward Foundation and lead attorney for the unions in the case, said after the hearing that they were pleased with the continued pause.

“We hope that this decision today will provide civil service workers with the assurance that the American people have their backs and we will continue to pursue all legal options to ensure that they are protected and that the law is upheld,” Goldstein said.

Lawyers for the Trump administration declined to speak to reporters after the hearing, and the White House did not immediately respond to GBH News’ request for comment.

The oral arguments came 13 days after the Trump administration tried to initiate the “Deferred Resignation Program” through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, offering nearly eight months of pay to federal civilian employees who elected to leave their jobs by Feb. 6. The directive was reportedly issued in a manner similar to when tech billionaire Elon Musk, a Trump adviser, cut jobs at Twitter in 2022.

More than 2 million workers faced the program deadline before Judge O’Toole temporarily blocked the controversial plan last week.

The deadline for employees to opt in to the program has since been extended as the challenge to the plan moves through court. The case is just one among several moving through the judiciary as Trump attempts to take a number of unprecedented actions less than a month after being sworn into office.

In the original complaint, attorneys for the AFL-CIO American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE Local 3707, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Quincy-based National Association of Government Employees labeled the program an unlawful attempt to “drastically reduce the nonpartisan career civil service upon which this country has depended and under which it has thrived for more than 140 years.”

“OPM has offered no statutory basis for its unprecedented offer,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys also asserted. “Moreover, the current appropriation for most federal agencies expires on March 14, 2025, but the Directive purports to make or authorize an expenditure or obligation through September 30, 2025, before an appropriation is authorized. The Antideficiency Act forbids such a guarantee.”

The complaint names the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — the federal government’s “chief human resources agency” — and its acting Director Charles Ezell as defendants.

More than a dozen state attorneys general, including Massachusetts’ Andrea J. Campbell, attempted to file an amicus brief in support of federal employees bringing the challenge. Judge O’Toole denied the motion before hearing arguments Monday.

Attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the program amounted to a “humane off-ramp” for people in the federal workforce who will face drastic changes as the government scales back work-from-home arrangements that became widespread at the height of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Judge O’Toole did not ask many questions during oral arguments Monday, but noted that the arguments over the temporary restraining order could evolve into a more permanent arrangement as the case moves forward.

Sources familiar with the case estimated a more conclusive ruling could come quickly.