“We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum,” according to the high court’s 8-1 decision, which left only Jackson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, in the dissent.

Jackson called the decision “hubristic and senseless” and accused her colleagues of second-guessing a lower court judge “from our lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence.”

“In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,” Jackson wrote.

But Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama and one of the court’s most liberal justices who often aligns with Jackson, declined to fully join her this time. While expressing concern about the administration’s reorganization efforts, she agreed the plans were not yet ripe for review.

“The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” Sotomayor wrote. “I join the court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance.”

Sotomayor’s break from Jackson drew significant attention from conservatives on X, notably commentator Charlie Kirk, who said, “Imagine how much of a drag it must be to have a DEI justice embarrassing your side.”

Jackson has been subject to relentless criticism online by conservatives who accuse her of being a “DEI hire” ever since her confirmation in 2022, after Biden made a vow to appoint the first black woman on the high court.

Notably, Sotomayor was left standing with just Jackson in the last emergency order the Supreme Court issued on July 3. Justice Elena Kagan, another Obama appointee, joined the Republican-appointed majority in a 7-2 order to clarify that a lower court in Massachusetts could not intervene to block the deportation of eight criminal migrants to South Sudan.

The Supreme Court’s order overturned a May 22 injunction from U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, who ruled that Trump’s executive order likely exceeded his authority and required congressional approval. The injunction had blocked RIFs at more than a dozen agencies.

“Agencies are being prevented (and have been since the district court issued its temporary restraining order a month ago) from taking needed steps to make the federal government and workforce more efficient,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the high court in filings. “Absent intervention from this Court, that intolerable state of affairs promises to endure for months.”

The lower court’s order came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor unions, progressive legal groups, and several Democratic-led local governments. Plaintiffs warned that allowing the administration to move forward would trigger a “breakneck reorganization” before the legal issues were resolved.

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg,” they argued. “If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority … there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services.”

Altshuler Berzon LLP, Democracy Forward, Protect Democracy, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Public Rights Project represent the coalition. In a statement Tuesday, they said they were “disappointed” by the ruling but pledged to continue fighting.

“Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy,” the groups said. “This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”

Tuesday’s decision marks the second time the justices have stepped in this term to allow Trump’s federal workforce overhaul to proceed. In April, the court permitted the administration to fire thousands of probationary employees, at that time over the dissent of both Jackson and Sotomayor.

SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP PLAN TO CUT FEDERAL WORKFORCE

The administration had previously asked the court to lift a temporary injunction in the RIFs case, but the justices allowed it to lapse without action, effectively mooting that request. This time, they moved to clear the path fully.

The ruling represents a major procedural win for the Trump administration, which has leaned heavily on the court’s emergency docket this term to bypass lower court injunctions and fast-track its policy changes.