Trump’s Layoff Power Upheld

Supreme Court Allows Federal Worker Layoffs to Proceed Amid Legal Challenge

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume its efforts to reorganize and reduce the size of the federal government, lifting a lower court order that had blocked widespread layoffs of federal employees across nearly two dozen agencies. This decision allows the administration to move forward with plans spearheaded by the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The Justice Department sought emergency intervention from the Supreme Court after a federal judge issued an injunction in May, halting the job cuts and preventing the enforcement of DOGE directives aimed at slashing programs and staff.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

In a concise, unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court stated that the district court’s injunction was based on its belief that President Trump’s executive order and related directives from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) were unlawful.

The Supreme Court asserted that the government is likely to succeed in arguing that the executive order and memorandum are indeed lawful. The court emphasized that its decision does not reflect any opinion on the legality of specific agency reduction-in-force (RIF) or reorganization plans produced under the executive order. The district court’s injunction was based on the perceived illegality of the executive order itself, not on an evaluation of the individual plans. Therefore, the specific plans were not under consideration by the Supreme Court at this time.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced her dissent, accusing the court of showing undue “enthusiasm for greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a separate statement, acknowledged that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. However, she noted that the specific agency plans for reductions-in-force were not yet before the Supreme Court. She joined the court’s stay, emphasizing that it allows the district court to consider those questions in the first instance, ensuring that the plans are carried out within legal constraints.

Reactions to the Ruling

Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it “stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump’s authority over federal personnel,” and that it would allow federal agencies to become more efficient.

A coalition of labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and local governments that initiated the legal challenge expressed their disappointment. They argued that the decision poses a serious threat to democracy and endangers essential services. They maintain that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers on a large scale without congressional approval is unconstitutional.

Background of the Dispute

President Trump initiated efforts to reduce the size of the government shortly after assuming office. He established DOGE, a task force focused on cost-cutting measures, and his administration began taking steps to restructure agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In February, President Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to develop plans for “large-scale” reductions-in-force. Following this directive, the OPM and OMB issued a memo instructing agencies to submit plans for two phases of job cuts.

Several department heads began implementing workforce reductions, resulting in thousands of federal employees losing their jobs. Other federal entities had scheduled significant reductions in the coming weeks and months. These reductions-in-force are distinct from the mass terminations of probationary workers, who had generally been in their positions for one or two years, although those firings have also been subject to legal challenges.

The Legal Challenge

In response to President Trump’s executive order, labor unions, nonprofit groups, and local governments filed lawsuits against nearly every federal agency to block the layoffs. They argued that the executive order exceeded the President’s authority and violated the separation of powers. The Department of Education was not included in the unions’ suit.

A federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the Trump administration from proceeding with existing reductions-in-force or planning future layoffs as directed by President Trump. The order also prohibited administration officials from enforcing any further orders by DOGE to cut programs or staff.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston extended the block in May, ruling that while the President can restructure federal agencies, he must first obtain approval from Congress. Her injunction applied to 22 federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and State, among others.

Judge Illston emphasized that while Presidents can set policy priorities, Congress creates and funds federal agencies, assigning them duties that they are legally obligated to carry out. She asserted that agencies cannot conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a President cannot initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.

The Government’s Argument

The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to lift Judge Illston’s order. The appeals court stated that President Trump’s executive order “far exceeds” his supervisory powers under the Constitution.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the district court’s order was “flawed” and based on the “indefensible premise” that the President needs congressional authorization to oversee personnel decisions within the executive branch.

He asserted that the injunction interfered with the Executive Branch’s internal operations and its legal authority to plan and carry out RIFs on a government-wide scale. He further contended that the injunction had halted numerous in-progress RIFs at more than a dozen federal agencies, creating confusion and forcing the government to retain thousands of employees whose continued employment was deemed not to be in the government’s or public’s best interest.

The Unions’ Rebuttal

Lawyers for the unions urged the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s request for emergency relief. They warned that allowing President Trump to proceed with his planned reorganization before a decision on the merits of the case would cause irreversible damage.

They argued that offices and functions across the federal government would be abolished, agencies would be radically downsized, critical government services would be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees would lose their jobs. They stated that the damage would be irreparable.

The unions emphasized that if the injunction remained in place, it would not prevent the President from seeking congressional approval for a reorganization of the government.