Supreme Court lets Trump pursue mass federal layoffs

Handing President Donald Trump another victory, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Tuesday for his administration to pursue mass federal job cuts potentially numbering in the hundreds of thousands and the restructuring of numerous agencies.

Workforce reductions are being planned by the administration at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies.

The Supreme Court lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" while litigation in the case proceeds.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields welcomed the court's action, calling it "another definitive victory for the president and his administration" that reinforced Trump's authority to implement "efficiency across the federal government." The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in several cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January including clearing the way for implementation of some of his hardline immigration policies. In addition, Trump last week also claimed the biggest legislative win of his second presidential term with congressional passage of a massive package of tax and spending cuts.

The court, in a brief unsigned order on Tuesday, said Trump's administration was "likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order" and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision. Jackson wrote that Illston's "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."

Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by his administration.

A group of unions, non-profits and local governments that sued to block the administration's mass layoffs said Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling "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 plaintiffs said in a statement, adding that they would "continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent."

Illston had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in ordering the government downsizing.

"As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote.

The judge's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal workforce. Formerly spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump.

The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out.

Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, said the Supreme Court's decision allows Trump to move forward with mass firings of federal workers, without adjudicating the legality of those layoffs.

"These are not minor reductions in force," Moynihan said. "Trump has made clear he wants a major downsizing of the federal government. The court is willing to let him move forward and do severe and irreparable damage to public services."

Americans narrowly favor on Trump's campaign to downsize the federal government, with about 56% saying they supported the effort and 40% opposed, according to April Reuters/Ipsos polling. Their views broke down along party lines with 89% of Republicans, but just 26% of Democrats, supportive.

'SUPERVISORY POWERS'
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's ruling. That prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's order.

"The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the Justice Department told the court, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority.

Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," the plaintiffs told the court, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs."

The Supreme Court in recent months has let Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.

In addition, it has allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, twice sided with DOGE and curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.