Key victory for Trump: Supreme Court allows his federal cutback plan to move forward

The Supreme Court lifted an injunction on Tuesday that had prevented Trump’s administration from moving forward with its plan for massive layoffs in the federal bureaucracy. The high court authorized federal agencies to resume implementation of the executive order issued by Trump in February, which instructs them to prepare reductions in force (RIFs) as part of a sweeping reorganization of the government apparatus.

While the Court clarified that the plaintiffs will still be able to legally challenge specific measures in the future, the current decision gives the administration a temporary green light to move forward. "We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum," the ruling clarifies.

Undoes the blockade

The high court ruling reverses an order issued May 22 by San Francisco-based federal Judge Susan Illston, who had indefinitely blocked the implementation of layoff plans at more than a dozen federal agencies. Illston, an appointee during Bill Clinton's presidency, found that the president's initiative was probably unconstitutional because it lacked congressional authorization.

The government, through Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued before the court that the blockade jeopardized the efficiency of federal operations. "Agencies are being prevented ... from taking needed steps to make the federal government and workforce more efficient," Sauer wrote, calling the situation "intolerable" and warning that it could drag on for months without Supreme Court intervention.

Debate within the court

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the court's decision, calling it "hubristic and senseless." She noted that the court was making a decision without a good understanding of what is happening in practice. For her part, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while often at odds with Jackson, agreed with some of his concerns. Still, she voted to lift the block, arguing that the Court was not deciding whether the firings were legal or not, but allowing the case to continue in lower courts.