The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump at least temporarily to move ahead with plans to impose reductions in force and reorganize various government agencies.
The court imposed an administrative stay in the case at the request of the Trump administration. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to provide a written dissent.
At issue is a ruling by California-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who ruled in May that while the president can seek to make changes, there are limits when they are done wholesale.
“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.
The justices made it clear Tuesday that their order is not about the legality of any individual agency reduction in force or reorganization plan, only the legality of Trump’s executive order and an administration memo related to workforce plans.
In her dissenting opinion, Jackson wrote that “this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
The decision affects 19 federal agencies, as well as the White House-adjacent Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management and U.S. DOGE Service.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers that Illston’s ruling is based on the “indefensible premise” that the president needs permission from Congress to carry out his duties as delineated in Article II of the Constitution.
“Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland of this authority,” he wrote. “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 White House praised the ruling Tuesday night.
“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. “It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government.”
The legal challenge was brought by various unions and nonprofit groups, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as certain local jurisdictions, including the cities of Chicago and Baltimore.
Their lawyers said that if the court granted Trump’s request, “statutorily required and authorized programs, offices, and functions across the federal government will be abolished,” with some departments “radically downsized.” They urged that the court allow the litigation to conclude before it decides whether Trump can implement his plan.
The coalition said in a statement 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,” they said.
