Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority made a controversial decision that allows President Donald Trump to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
This ruling, made through the shadow docket, lacks the legal precedent, factual basis, or justification that typically accompanies significant judicial decisions.
The implications for the separation of powers are serious, posing a greater risk to public education.
Established by federal statute in 1979, the Education Department was created to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunities for all individuals.
Congress not only created the department through legislation but also assigned it crucial priorities, including overseeing the allocation of over $100 billion annually for kindergarten through 12th-grade funding, a significant portion of which constitutes around 11% of all public school funding.
Additionally, the department is responsible for administering federal student financial aid, which has provided over $120 billion each year to more than 13 million students.
It also ensures equal access to education for poor, disabled, and disadvantaged students and administers special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for more than 7 million students.
Congress explicitly prohibited the Education Secretary from abolishing any organizational entities established by the founding statute without following prescribed steps.
These steps require a 90-day advance notice to Congress, including factual support and explanations for each proposed action to eliminate any part of the department.
The Trump administration did not adhere to these statutory mandates.
While presidents have historically had differing views on the significance and purpose of the Education Department, none prior to Trump claimed the unilateral authority to eliminate a federal department established by Congress.
In 1982, President Reagan sought to dismantle the Education Department and presented a proposal to Congress, but due to a lack of support, he ultimately withdrew his plan.
In a stark contrast, President Trump appointed Linda McMahon to lead the department with the directive to effectively put herself out of a job, meaning the elimination of the entire agency.
In March, McMahon began immediate layoffs, cutting the department’s staff in half and describing this initial reduction as the first step toward a complete shutdown directed by the President.
McMahon’s approach included employee lockouts that prevented terminated staff from transferring their ongoing work to remaining personnel.
In a move reminiscent of Trump’s decision regarding U.S. Agency for International Development’s food supply, which he ordered to be incinerated instead of distributed to those in need, the ongoing projects of the Education Department were similarly obliterated.
During a subsequent Senate subcommittee hearing about the department’s budget, Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington asked McMahon whether the department had conducted an analysis of the impact of the staff reductions on its statutory responsibilities.
McMahon’s response was simply, “No.”
The Supreme Court’s decision followed closely on the heels of an email sent to states indicating the indefinite freezing of $7 billion in education funding, which was scheduled to be disbursed the following day without any rationale provided.
According to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President is prohibited from refusing to spend funds that Congress has previously appropriated.
However, Trump argues that this legislation violates the Constitution, claiming he should have greater control over congressional spending.
Republicans in Congress have aligned themselves with the President’s interpretation.
Following a partisan vote in the Senate, the House passed legislation that would enable Trump to recover $9 billion meant for foreign aid and public broadcasting, with only two Republicans opposing the measure and all Democrats voting against it.
This bill is now poised for Trump’s signature.
The funds that were seized by the Education Department had been intended for vital after-school and summer programs designed to support students while their parents worked, along with adult literacy classes, mental health support in schools, smaller class sizes in elementary schools, and resources for English language learners.
Alabama’s Superintendent of Education, Eric Mackey, expressed concerns about how Trump’s funding blockade would adversely affect students who are in the greatest need, noting that it would particularly strain the ability to educate children in rural, impoverished districts.
For nearly 250 years, the constitutional framework has dictated that Congress is responsible for making laws while the President is tasked with faithfully executing them.
The Constitution does not grant the President the authority to unilaterally enact, amend, or repeal statutes.
The conservative justices on the Supreme Court seem to interpret history selectively, bending existing statutes to align with the will of Trump.
This recent ruling on the Education Department aligns with a prior shadow docket ruling in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, which allowed the administration to terminate tens of thousands of federal workers across 19 different agencies while legal appeals regarding these firings remain pending.
The dissenting opinions have expressed strong discontent with the court’s decisions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor condemned the Education Department ruling as “indefensible,” arguing it grants excessive power to the Executive branch to repeal laws by dismissing essential personnel responsible for executing those laws.
She also highlighted the threat such executive overreach poses to congressional authority.
Sotomayor emphasized that when the Executive branch publicly announces intentions to violate the law and then acts on those intentions, it becomes the Judiciary’s responsibility to penalize that lawlessness rather than facilitating it.
The court’s ruling poses a significant challenge to the established separation of powers.
It effectively allows Trump to dismantle the laws passed by Congress through mass terminations, which directly contradicts the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.
Now, the court’s majority has altered the constitutional landscape, giving Trump the power to discard laws simply by removing personnel necessary for their execution.
Instead of ensuring that the nation’s laws are “faithfully executed,” the court has permitted the President to nullify them at will.
image source from：salon
