A nearly unanimous Supreme Court cleared the way for President Donald Trump to implement an executive order to conduct mass layoffs across the federal workforce. The justices reversed a lower court order that had blocked the Trump administration from carrying out firings. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter. 

What is this case about?

• In February, President Trump issued an executive order directing government agencies to conduct “large-scale reductions in force (RIFs),” per guidance from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 
• As a result of Trump’s policy, layoffs were planned for virtually every federal agency. Already, the State Department has fired more than 1,300 employees. The total number of employees targeted for layoffs is unclear, but a group of Democratic senators warned that Trump’s plan could put up to 700,000 federal jobs at risk. 
  • Letter from Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen to Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management Charles Ezell: “The Department of Education has announced layoffs of 50% and the Department of Veterans Affairs has proposed cuts of over 80,000 employees. The Department of Defense is seeking to reduce its civilian workforce by 5-8%, or 61,000 employees, and the IRS reportedly plans to cut around 25% of its workforce, or 20,000 employees.”
• A group of labor organizations, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s proposal and asked the judge to block the administration from implementing layoffs until a final ruling is issued.
• According to the complaint, “The actions taken by the Administration to implement the President’s order, usurp Congress’s exclusive Article I legislative authority, exceed the President’s Article II Executive or statutory authority, and therefore violate the Constitution’s fundamental separation of powers principles.” 
• The federal workers invoked Supreme Court precedent from the 1952 case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, which stands for the principle that President Harry Truman overstepped his constitutional and statutory authority when he issued an executive order to seize control of the nation’s steel mills in response to a strike by the United Steelworkers of America. The American Federation of Government Employees cites Youngstown to argue that President Trump cannot unilaterally order mass layoffs in ways that conflict with Congress’s statutory framework, just as President Truman could not seize steel mills without congressional approval. The complaint reads, “When the President takes for himself the legislative power of Congress to recreate federal agencies in the manner he sees fit, he violates the Constitution.” 

What happened in the courts?

• In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction halting the administration’s implementation of widespread reductions. Illston wrote, “Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a President may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.” 
• A divided panel of judges on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to overturn the lower court’s freeze, finding that the federal workers were likely to ultimately succeed with their lawsuit. Judge Consuelo Callahan dissented. She would have granted the Trump administration’s request because, in her view, “The President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct reductions in force.” 
• In early June, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the petition, “[T]he district court’s flawed injunction inflicts ongoing and severe harm on the government…[because] [i]t interferes with the Executive Branch’s internal operations and unquestioned legal authority to plan and carry out RIFs, and does so on a government-wide scale.”

What did the Supreme Court decide?

• By a vote of 8-1, the justices overturned the lower court’s injunction, clearing the way for the Trump administration to carry out its restructuring plans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a brief concurring opinion.
• In a brief, unsigned order, the majority explained that the district court’s order blocking Trump’s plans was not warranted because “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.”
• Justice Sotomayor, in her concurrence, emphasized that the Court was not yet considering the legality of the Trump administration’s downsizing plans, signaling possible disagreement with the Court’s assessment on the likelihood Trump will ultimately win in the case. Sotomayor wrote, “I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law.’”

Why did Justice Jackson dissent?

• Justice Jackson argued that the district court’s freeze should have remained in place while litigation continued. Jackson wrote, the “temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”
• She criticized the majority for issuing an order that will “allow an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government to continue apace, causing irreparable harm before courts can determine whether the President has the authority to engage in the actions he proposes.” 
• Jackson also emphasized that the district court is “the tribunal best positioned” to assess questions of fact such as the “effects [of] a massive restructuring of the Federal Government (the likes of which have historically required Congress’s approval).” Jackson continued, “From its lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence, this Court lacks the capacity to fully evaluate, much less responsibly override, reasoned lower court factfinding about what this challenged executive action actually entails.”

How have courts ruled in other recent cases related to the federal workforce?

• It has been a mixed bag: Federal district and appellate courts have largely sided with federal workers in their lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s plans, while the Supreme Court has mostly sided with Trump.
• In a case stemming from the administration’s termination of tens of thousands of probationary employees, Judge William Alsup issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction, which was overturned by the Supreme Court. The justices did so because the organizations lacked standing to bring the claim. (Standing is a constitutional requirement to bring a lawsuit that a plaintiff demonstrate an injury caused by the defendant that can be redressed by a favorable outcome in court.)
• And in May, the Supreme Court let Trump remove agency leaders from their positions, writing that the decision “reflects [the Court’s] judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”

What happens next?

• The Supreme Court did not issue a decision on the merits of the American Federation of Government Employees’ claim that Trump’s restructuring plans are unconstitutional, but it does not look good for the challengers. Still, the case will be sent back to the district court for further analysis.
• However, this ruling means the Trump administration can resume its plans to terminate thousands of employees. The State Department has already started carrying out layoffs, and other agencies are expected to follow.