In 'Serious Blow to Our Democracy,' Supreme Court Allows Trump Mass Firing Order

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a block on U.S. President Donald Trump's February executive order directing federal agency leaders to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" and a related memorandum.

In response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits, Judge Susan Illston—appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton—had issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in May.

That legal battle led to the Supreme Court's shadow docket, where emergency decisions don't have to be signed. The Tuesday opinion from the high court's unidentified majority states that Illston's injunction was based on a view that Trump's order implementing his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) "Workforce Optimization Initiative" and a joint memo from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management "are unlawful."

"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," the Supreme Court continued, emphasizing that the justices did not weigh in on the legality of any related agency reduction in force (RIF) and reorganization plans.

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly dissented on Tuesday. Another liberal, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote in a short concurrence that "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. I join the court's stay because it leaves the district court free to consider those questions in the first instance."

Meanwhile, Jackson argued that "given the fact-based nature of the issue in this case and the many serious harms that result from allowing the president to dramatically reconfigure the federal government, it was eminently reasonable for the district court to maintain the status quo while the courts evaluate the lawfulness of the president's executive action."

She continued:

At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress' 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.

In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless. Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts—including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities. I see no basis to conclude that the district court erred—let alone clearly so—in finding that the president is attempting to fundamentally restructure the federal government.

Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts for Slate, said on social media that "Justice Jackson's criticism is spot-on, of course. But as Justice Sotomayor's concurrence suggests, SCOTUS' order looks like a negotiated compromise that leaves the district court room to block future RIFs and agency 'restructuring.' So the damage is limited."

"The real test will be what happens once agencies start to develop and implement plans for mass firings—which will, by and large, be illegal," he warned. "District courts still have discretion, for now, to stop them. Will SCOTUS freeze their orders and let unlawful RIFs and restructurings proceed? I fear it will."

The coalition that challenged the order and memo includes the American Federation of Government Employees and four AFGE locals; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union and three SEIU Locals; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Geophysical Union; American Public Health Association; Center for Taxpayer Rights; Coalition to Protect America's National Parks; Common Defense; Main Street Alliance; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northeast Organic Farming Association Inc.; VoteVets; and Western Watersheds Project.

It also includes the governments of Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Harris County, Texas; King County, Washington; and both San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California.

"Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy," the coalition said Tuesday. "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."

"While we are disappointed in this decision," the coalition added, "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."

Congressman Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was similarly critical but determined on Tuesday.

"The Trump-appointed Supreme Court just surrendered to a dangerous vision for America, letting the administration gut federal agencies by firing expert civil servants," he said. " The damage from these mass firings will last for decades, and weaken the government’s ability to respond to disasters and provide essential benefits and services. Oversight Democrats will not sit back as Trump turns the court into a political weapon. We will keep fighting to protect the American people and prevent the destruction of our federal agencies."