The ruling lifts a lower court order halting Trump’s planned firings and restructuring of federal agencies.
The Supreme Court on July 8 lifted a lower court order that prevented the Trump administration from carrying out job cuts en masse and restructuring federal agencies.
The new ruling lifts U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s May 22 order that temporarily stopped large-scale layoffs known as reductions in force from moving forward while the litigation continues in the lower courts.
The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees.
The Supreme Court said in an unsigned order that the district court blocked the government’s actions based on the lower court’s view that President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14210 and a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget were “unlawful.”
That executive order, dated Feb. 11, was created to implement the Workforce Optimization Initiative of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The order directed all agency heads to work with DOGE to reduce staffing and limit hiring.
“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,” the high court stated.
The court added that it expressed “no view on the legality of any Agency [reduction in force] and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the new order, which she called “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
Jackson said there was no basis to conclude that the district court erred in its “finding that the President is attempting to fundamentally restructure the Federal Government.”
“Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts—including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities,” Jackson said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she concurred with the Supreme Court’s order even though she shared some of Jackson’s concerns.
