The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Trump administration could proceed with efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, as it stayed a preliminary injunction issued in May by a federal judge in Massachusetts.
This injunction had called for the administration to halt its layoffs of nearly 1,400 workers and to restore many of those employees to their positions.
Although this ruling is not a final decision and the case will continue through the lower courts, it significantly impacts the states and school districts that filed lawsuits, as they express concerns that without this injunction, the administration’s actions may cause irreversible damage to the Department.
The decision from the Supreme Court was unsigned, and the majority did not provide a detailed explanation for their ruling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a notable dissent, declaring the decision “indefensible”.
She warned that it grants the Executive Branch the power to effectively eliminate laws by removing those necessary for implementation.
Sotomayor expressed concern that the majority is either ignoring or not fully grasping the serious implications of their ruling on the Constitution’s separation of powers.
In response to the ruling, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon stated, “While today’s ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.”
This legal battle was initially set into motion on May 22, when U.S. District Court Judge Myong J. Joun issued a preliminary injunction that blocked President Trump and McMahon from executing an executive order to close the Education Department.
Judge Joun also mandated the administration to restore the Department to its prior status and reinstate hundreds of employees who had been notified of job losses in March.
He voiced that, “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,” emphasizing that the court cannot remain indifferent to the ongoing firings and the gradual dismantling of the Department.
The injunction also temporarily prevented President Trump from following through on a commitment made in the Oval Office to transfer the management of the entire federal student loan portfolio and various special needs programs to other federal agencies.
On June 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concurred with Judge Joun’s assessment, stating that deep staffing cuts have rendered it “effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions.”
In his application to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented the Trump administration, asserting that the government has clearly explained that only Congress has the authority to eliminate the Department of Education.
He described the staffing cuts as part of a “streamlining” process, arguing that this action falls within the executive’s authority.
Sauer emphasized, “The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed to carry out an agency’s statutory functions.”
In their defense of Judge Joun’s injunction, the plaintiffs’ attorneys cautioned the Supreme Court that if the dismantling of the Department is allowed to continue, even if they eventually win their case, much of the damage may become irreversible.
As the ruling proceeds to the lower courts for further examination, the implications of this Supreme Court decision remain crucial for the future of the Department of Education.
image source from：npr
