Federal agencies can resume mass layoffs, Supreme Court rules

Updated July 8 at 7:42 p.m.

Federal agencies across government can resume laying off their employees en masse after the Supreme Court reversed a court order that barred those reductions, with several agencies likely to move swiftly to start cutting staff. 

The court once again ruled in favor of the Trump administration in its push to expand the president’s power to slash agency workforce rolls as he sees fit after it reversed a lower court order that impacted most major federal departments. Dozens of reduction-in-force actions were held up by the now-defunct injunction and agencies have been working behind the scenes to quickly resume those activities once that block fell. 

The case landed at the Supreme Court after a district judge in California ruled in favor of the unions, municipalities and advocacy groups that sued over Trump’s workforce reduction plans and an appeals court subsequently allowed that ruling to remain in place. 

The plaintiffs argued the Trump administration must receive congressional approval for its reorganization plans, including those seeking to lay off federal workers. Trump circumvented that obligation by issuing an executive order—and subsequent implementation guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget—calling for mass layoffs, they said. 

Reversing the injunction, the plaintiffs said, would amount to the Supreme Court “greenlighting the dismantling of the federal government in a manner that will later be effectively impossible to undo.” 

"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 majority wrote for the court. It added that it did not express a view on the specific reorganization and RIF plans from individual agencies. 

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented on the application for a stay of the injunction, agreeing with the plaintiffs that Trump circumvented Congress and suggesting her colleagues have greenlit "all the harmful upheaval that edict entails." She argued the majority ignored the fact-based findings of the lower courts and the high court's decision was "hubristic and senseless." 

"In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground," Jackson said. She added the court has now allowed "an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the federal government to continue apace, causing irreparable harm before courts can determine whether the President has the authority to engage in the actions he proposes." 

Jackson suggested the administration's actions will lead to "mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the federal government as Congress has created it," adding, "While the president no doubt has the authority to manage the executive branch, our system does not allow the president to rewrite laws on his own under the guise of that authority." 

The administration had argued that Trump was acting wholly within his powers and the ongoing injunction had prevented agencies from "taking needed steps to make the federal government and workforce more efficient." Absent Supreme Court intervention, it added, the "intolerable state of affairs" would endure for months. 

John Sauer, the administration’s solicitor general, further noted that the high court previously stayed an injunction that blocked the administration from firing its probationary employees. 

Agencies that had already sent out RIF notices—such as the departments of Health and Human Services—may now be able to finalize the offboarding of thousands of staff, though the timing could be complicated by lawsuits affecting them specifically. The departments of Interior, Agriculture and State, among others, are now expected to quickly send out notices of their own to thousands of employees. The exact timing for those personnel moves are not yet clear. 

All the rulings on the case to date have taken place on a preliminary or emergency basis, meaning it still must still be argued on the merits. That process will take months to play out, however, and employees will be separated in the meantime. Should the case ultimately make its way back to the high court, it has demonstrated that it sympathizes with the administration’s perspective.

The Supreme Court stayed the injunction pending a complete decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a potential full hearing and decision before the high court itself. 

Democratic lawmakers vowed to continue fighting against Trump's cuts through any available means. 

"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," said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., who serves as ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "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.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said the fight would continue "in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities." 

This story has been updated with additional information.