Supreme Court Gives Trump Green Light to Initiate Mass Government Firings
The U.S. Supreme Court recently lifted an injunction that had blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to initiate large-scale reductions in the federal workforce. This injunction was originally placed by a San Francisco district judge who ruled against mass layoffs ordered under an executive order issued by President Trump as part of his Government efficiency initiative. the executive order called for agency heads to prepare for significant workforce reductions.
Federal employee unions had sued the administration, claiming these layoffs were illegal. A district judge, Susan Illston, ruled in May that 21 federal agencies could not proceed with their reduction plans, stating that while the President can seek changes within the executive branch, such large-scale reorganizations require lawful methods adn cooperation with Congress.
The Ninth Circuit upheld this injunction, but the Supreme Court overturned it in an unsigned 8-1 order, suggesting that the Trump administration is likely to succeed in the case as it proceeds. Justice Sotomayor concurred,emphasizing that plans must still comply with the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented strongly, arguing that the issue involves whether the President’s actions improperly bypass Congress’s policymaking authority.
The case will return to the lower court to determine if the specific reduction plans comply with federal law. this ruling follows a previous Supreme Court decision limiting federal courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.the Supreme Court’s action allows the Trump administration to move forward with workforce reductions while the legal process continues.
The Supreme Court lifted an injunction placed by a San Francisco district judge which blocked the Trump administration from reducing the federal workforce in large numbers.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order as part of his administration’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative in February, calling for agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law.”
Multiple federal government employee unions sued, arguing the mass layoffs were illegal, Politico reported.
In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee, ruled that 21 federal agencies could not move forward with plans to reduce the number of their employees and placed an injunction on the administration blocking it from doing so.
“The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch,” her order said.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling in May, upheld Illston’s order.
However, in a three-paragraph decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court lifted the district judge’s injunction, concluding that the Trump administration is likely to succeed in its underlying case as it moves through the litigation process.
The apparent 8-1 order from the court was unsigned.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a one-paragraph concurring opinion, saying that “the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force” in a manner that is “consistent with applicable law.”
“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,” she said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the lone dissenter, wrote as part of a 15-page opinion, “At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives—and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened.”
“Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” she said.
“While the President no doubt has the authority to manage the Executive Branch, our system does not allow the President to rewrite laws on his own under the guise of that authority,” Jackson argued.
The case will now return to Illston’s court, where she will be able to rule whether the specific Trump administration reduction-in-force plans are consistent with applicable federal law.
Last month, the Supreme Court sided with Trump, ruling 6-3 that federal district court judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett chastised Jackson’s dissent, writing, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
“Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law,” Barrett contended, noting Jackson in her dissent called such constraints “legalese.”
Justice Barrett’s brutal takedown of the dissent authored by Justice Jackson is something one wouldn’t have predicted from oral arguments. pic.twitter.com/oA6iX6Gxrx
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 27, 2025
Jackson wrote in her dissent that citing the Judiciary Act of 1789 regarding lower courts issuing universal injunctions involves a “mind-numbingly technical query.”
“But that legalese is a smokescreen. It obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” she wrote.
Barrett countered, “Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
