The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to proceed for the time being with Federal agency reorganization and reduction-in-force (RIF) plans proposed by the White House earlier this year, but also appeared to carve out some room in an order issued on July 8 for specific agency reorganization and RIF plans to be challenged in lower courts.
That unsigned order from the Supreme Court at least temporarily gives the administration the go-ahead to execute on plans to lay off thousands of Federal workers at 19 agencies including the Social Security Administration, and Departments of State and Treasury.
While the order did not include a vote count, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to write a public dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed some support for the thrust of Jackson’s dissent, but did not join it.
The Supreme Court order stayed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston who issued an indefinite pause on President Donald Trump’s plans to lay off thousands of Federal workers, which stemmed from an executive order he signed in February that requires Federal agencies to prepare reorganization and RIF plans.
Judge Illston ruled that Trump needed approval from Congress before restructuring the Federal government and conducting mass layoffs. That lower court decision sent the Trump administration to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where a divided three-judge panel upheld Judge Illston’s order, ultimately leading the administration to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s July 9 decision vacates the stay put in place by the Federal Appeals Court, but it also does not pass judgment on any specific agency reorganization and RIF plans that may be forthcoming.
“The District Court’s injunction was based on its view that Executive Order No. 14210 … and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management implementing that Executive Order are unlawful,” the Supreme Court majority said.
“Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful – and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied – we grant the application” to dismiss the stay upheld by the Federal Appeals court, the majority wrote.
The Supreme Court clarified that Judge Illston made her decision based on whether the issuance of the executive order was legal and not whether the plans themselves were legal, noting that those “plans are not before this Court” and that the justices’ decision was solely based on the order’s legality.
In concurring with the majority opinion, Justice Sotomayor said she agreed 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,’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much,” she continued.
But, Justice Sotomayor said, “the plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance.”
Some Democratic lawmakers have vowed to push back against reorganization and RIF plans and reiterated their intentions following the release of the July 8 Supreme Court decision.
“Oversight Democrats will not sit back as Trump turns the Court into a political weapon,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., who serves as the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “We will keep fighting to protect the American people and prevent the destruction of our federal agencies.”
“The damage from these mass firings will last for decades, and weaken the government’s ability to respond to disasters and provide essential benefits and services,” the representative added.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote on X that “we won’t stop fighting to stop these illegal firings.”
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which was joined by 11 nonprofit organizations and six local governments in filing the original suit in Federal District court, said the group will continue its fight against the administration’s aims.
“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” said the coalition in a joint statement.
“While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”
Meanwhile U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi touted the court’s decision in a post to X, writing that “federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before.”
The stay on the injunction on Trump’s plans will remain in place until the case is further litigated, according to the order from the Supreme Court.
In her 15-page dissent, Justice Jackson called the majority’s order “the wrong decision at the wrong moment,” noting that the court knows little about “what is actually happening on the ground.”
“For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” Jackson wrote. “In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”