Supreme Court Paves Path for Trump’s Federal Layoff Initiative

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the Trump administration to carry out extensive layoffs and significantly reduce the size of various federal agencies, a move that could impact tens of thousands of employees and fundamentally alter the federal workforce.

This ruling came in response to an executive order issued by Trump in February, directing agencies to prepare for mass layoffs. Under his guidance, plans have been developed to cut staff in multiple departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and several others.

In an unsigned order, the Court asserted that the Trump administration was “likely to succeed” in its claim that the executive orders were within its legal authority.

This decision marks another victory for Trump’s broader agenda aimed at consolidating authority within the executive branch. Since taking office again in January, the Supreme Court has sided with Trump’s administration on several emergency matters, including the enforcement of stringent immigration policies.

Tuesday’s ruling overturned a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who had blocked the administration from executing federal layoffs while the case was being deliberated.

Illston had ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by initiating layoffs without consulting Congress, which is responsible for creating and funding these agencies.

“Historically, the president can only broadly restructure federal agencies with Congressional approval,” Illston stated.

While this latest ruling eliminated a significant legal barrier, the Court noted that it did not evaluate the legality of specific layoff plans that federal agencies may propose.

These proposals, which some agencies had submitted earlier in the year, could still face legal scrapes due to union opposition, statutory restrictions, and civil service protections.

The White House characterized the decision as a “definitive victory for the president and his administration,” reinforcing Trump’s authority to enforce “efficiency across the federal government.”

However, two sources within the White House, who chose to remain anonymous, indicated that this ruling does not allow for immediate layoffs and cautioned that further legal complexities could impact the timing and extent of the job cuts.

A coalition of unions, nonprofits, and local governments that challenged the administration’s mass layoffs criticized the ruling, asserting it “seriously undermines our democracy” and jeopardizes essential services for the American people. They promised to continue their legal battle as the case unfolds.

The plaintiffs had previously warned that Trump’s initiatives could result in hundreds of thousands of layoffs.

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll from April revealed that Americans were slightly in favor of Trump’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce, with approximately 56% supporting the initiative compared to 40% opposing it. The support was heavily skewed along party lines, with 89% of Republicans expressing approval, compared to just 26% of Democrats.

Some agencies that had paused their downsizing plans stated they would proceed with these initiatives. “We will continue to advance our comprehensive reorganization plan,” the State Department, which proposed cutting nearly 2,000 positions, said on X.

DOGE Cuts

Upon assuming office in January, Trump initiated an extensive campaign to cut back the 2.3 million-strong federal workforce, led by billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency.

Musk and his mostly youthful team swiftly moved into major government agencies, terminating employees, gaining access to government computer systems, and effectively closing two agencies—the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Both Trump and Musk argued that the bloated federal bureaucracy required downsizing. Conversely, federal workers’ unions and most Democrats contended that the measures taken thus far and plans for future layoffs had been chaotic, leading to disarray within numerous agencies and risking essential public services, such as social security claim processing.

By late April, about 100 days into this initiative, the overhaul had resulted in the termination, resignation, and early retirement of around 260,000 civil servants, according to a Reuters tally.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting voice among the nine justices on Tuesday, criticizing the Court for its eagerness to greenlight what she deemed legally questionable actions by the president.

This latest ruling further extends Trump’s favorable status at the Supreme Court since taking office. The Court has allowed his administration to restart deportations of migrants to countries other than their origin without providing them an opportunity to demonstrate potential harms they might face, as well as revoking temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of migrants granted on humanitarian grounds.

Moreover, the Court permitted Trump to enforce his ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military, overturned a ruling requiring the administration to rehire thousands of dismissed workers, and limited federal judges’ powers to issue nationwide rulings that could hinder presidential policies.

Most of these decisions were made as emergency orders, commonly referred to as the shadow docket, in response to urgent requests presented to the Court.