On Tuesday, July 8, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision that had blocked widespread layoffs of federal employees across nearly two dozen agencies, allowing the Trump administration to advance with its plans to significantly downsize the federal workforce.
In a short, unsigned order, the justices ruled by an eight-to-one margin that the government is likely to prevail in its argument that President Donald Trump’s executive order and memorandum—requiring agencies to prepare for extensive staff reductions—are lawful. This ruling overturns a preliminary injunction issued on May 22 by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to dissent, arguing that the court had made “the wrong decision at the wrong time, especially considering how little the Court knows about what is actually happening in practice.” She criticized her fellow justices for readily permitting the president’s legally questionable actions in an emergency context.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate concurring opinion, pointing out that while the president cannot restructure federal agencies in ways that conflict with Congressional mandates, the specific agency plans for staff reductions are not presently before the Supreme Court. She joined the majority because the district court still has the authority to consider those issues initially.
This legal dispute began after Trump issued an executive order in February instructing federal agencies to develop plans for large-scale workforce cuts. Following this, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget sent out a memo ordering agencies to draft proposals for two rounds of job reductions.
Judge Illston had supported a coalition of labor unions, nonprofit groups, cities, and counties that challenged the administration’s authority. She found that Congress is responsible for establishing federal agencies, funding them, and assigning legal duties. Illston determined that agencies cannot undertake major reorganizations or layoffs that bypass Congressional requirements, and said the president must collaborate with Congress before making significant changes to the executive branch’s structure.
Her injunction affected 22 federal agencies.
The planned workforce reductions are notable in their scale. The Health and Human Services Department expects to cut 8,000 to 10,000 jobs, while the Energy Department plans to eliminate around 8,500 positions. Initially, the Veterans Administration aimed to lay off 83,000 employees, but has since reduced that figure to about 30,000.
The Trump administration turned to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift Illston’s order in a two-to-one decision on May 30. The appeals court concluded that Trump’s executive order went far beyond his constitutional supervisory powers.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the emergency appeal that managing federal agency staff is central to the president’s executive authority. He contended that the Constitution presumes the president has control over staffing and doesn’t require explicit approval from Congress.
The plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to deny the Justice Department’s request, asserting that allowing the Trump administration to proceed would eliminate government programs, offices, and functions, significantly reduce the size of agencies beyond Congressional approval, and result in the loss of essential services.
Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating on social media that it prevented overreaching lower courts from limiting Trump’s power over federal personnel. She said this decision will allow agencies to become more efficient than ever.
The Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, has led the staff reduction initiative. Established by Trump as a budget-cutting task force, DOGE was initially led by Elon Musk, who has since left the position.
The coalition of unions, nonprofit organizations, cities, and counties behind the lawsuit voiced disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision. They said the ruling gravely undermines democracy and puts crucial public services at risk.
Tens of thousands of federal workers have already been affected, either through layoffs, participation in deferred resignation programs, or being placed on leave. These reductions are distinct from the mass firings of probationary employees that took place in February, which involved staff generally in their first one or two years.
The Supreme Court emphasized that it was not considering the legality of any particular agency’s layoff or reorganization plans. The justices pointed out that these plans were not before the court and that the district court had blocked their implementation based on its views about the executive order and memo, not based on the specifics of the plans themselves.
This decision marks the latest in a string of Supreme Court rulings favoring the Trump administration in cases involving federal agencies and presidential power.