The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration the green light to proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education, overturning a previous federal judge’s ruling that blocked this action.
This decision, made public on Monday, came without any explanation from the conservative-majority court, which granted an emergency application from the administration.
The court’s three liberal justices expressed their dissent, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly criticizing the ruling in her opinion.
Sotomayor emphasized that when the Executive branch openly declares its intention to disregard the law, it is the Judiciary’s responsibility to intervene, not facilitate such actions.
She warned that the majority’s ruling either shows willful blindness to its ramifications or a naive understanding of the grave threat posed to the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Furthermore, she claimed that the decision effectively rewards blatant defiance of constitutional principles.
This case concerning the Department of Education is distinct from another recent ruling where the Supreme Court also permitted the Trump administration to enact layoffs across various government agencies.
In a ruling dated May 22, Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Myong Joun stated that evidence suggested the administration’s aim was to dismantle the Department of Education without legislative authority.
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pursued aggressive downsizing measures across multiple government agencies, raising concerns that he is overstepping the bounds of Congressional authority.
In an executive order issued at the start of his term, President Trump signaled plans to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon followed up on this directive by issuing a memo to staff announcing mass layoffs, stating her ultimate goal was to effectively close the Department, an action that has not been sanctioned by Congress.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that Joun’s ruling should be stayed as it infringes on the president’s authority to manage federal agencies.
He contended that the plaintiffs—comprising states, school districts, and employee unions—lacked the standing to challenge the layoffs legally.
Sauer further clarified that the proposed reduction would affect 1,378 positions and insisted that the government had been clear that this was not an initiative aimed at entirely abolishing the Department, despite some Republican desires.
He acknowledged that only Congress has the power to dismantle the agency.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, however, asserted that the lawsuit had shown that Trump’s actions were ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ violating legal norms and constitutional safeguards.
James noted that the reduction in force improperly disrupted teams responsible for essential statutory duties, with insufficient provisions for alternate means to carry out these obligations.
Moreover, she argued that this policy contravenes statutory limitations on the Secretary’s ability to reorganize or eliminate functions within the Department of Education.
image source from：nbcnews
