The Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for Donald Trump to continue his mass layoffs across the federal government, ruling that the president’s “workforce optimization” executive order was “likely lawful,” while lifting a federal judge’s order halting the firings.
“Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful — and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied — we grant the application” from the Department of Justice for emergency relief, the unsigned ruling states.
The court, however, left room for further lawsuits regarding specific agency plans.
“We express no view on the legality of any agency [Reduction-In-Force] and reorganization plan produced or approved pursuant to the executive order and memorandum,” the ruling continues. “The district court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the executive order and memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this court.”
Trump, along with the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” almost immediately began efforts to shrink the size of the government earlier this year. In February, he issued an executive order titled “Implementing The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.”
It included a directive for agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law.” Agencies began their cuts soon after, and lawsuits against these agencies cropped up en masse after that.
This SCOTUS order lifts an injunction from U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a California judge who had indefinitely halted efforts to conduct mass layoffs at numerous federal agencies. Illston said the executive order was likely to be found unlawful.
“Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a President may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress,” she wrote.
Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson dissented in a strongly worded opinion Tuesday.
“The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination,” she wrote. “But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurrence, agreed with Jackson that “the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates.”
“Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law,’” she continued. “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.”
The coalition that brought the initial case said in a press release from co-counsel Democracy Forward that the decision “has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
“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,” the statement reads. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”