In a bold move that’s sure to rattle the bureaucratic beehive, the Supreme Court has cleared the path for the Trump administration to slash federal jobs with a recent unsigned ruling.
The Hill reported that the decision, handed down on Tuesday, overturns a lower court’s block on Trump’s February 2025 executive order, allowing federal agencies to push forward with significant reductions in force (RIFs) while leaving the door ajar for future legal challenges to specific plans.
Back in February 2025, Trump issued an executive order that sent shivers down the spine of federal employees, directing agencies to gear up for workforce cuts.
By May 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, based in San Francisco and appointed under a previous Democratic administration, slapped an injunction on the plan, halting RIF efforts across multiple departments and deeming the order likely unlawful without congressional backing.
This roadblock came after a coalition of labor unions, advocacy groups, and local governments, represented by heavy-hitting legal teams like Altshuler Berzon and Democracy Forward, filed suit to stop the layoffs.
But the Supreme Court, in its latest ruling, sided with the administration, declaring the executive order likely lawful and lifting Illston’s injunction with a swift stroke.
This decision marks a significant win for Trump, whose team has repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to dismantle lower court obstacles, and it’s the second time this year the court has backed the administration’s push to trim federal payrolls.
In April 2025, over the objections of Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, the court permitted the firing of thousands of probationary employees, setting the stage for this broader ruling on RIFs.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued, “Agencies are being prevented from taking needed steps,” claiming the injunction created an “intolerable state of affairs” that could drag on without the court’s intervention.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson didn’t hold back, blasting the ruling as “hubristic and senseless,” and accusing her colleagues of “second-guessing the lower judge” without a full grasp of the on-the-ground realities.
“In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment,” Jackson added, highlighting the court’s limited insight into the practical fallout of such a sweeping policy.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while joining the stay, noted cautiously, “The plans themselves are not before this Court,” emphasizing that lower courts still have room to scrutinize specific agency actions down the line.
The coalition of plaintiffs, visibly stung by the ruling, issued a statement lamenting, “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow,” warning that essential services Americans depend on could be at risk.
Yet, they remain defiant, asserting that “reorganizing government functions” without congressional approval violates constitutional principles, and they’ve pledged to keep up the legal battle against specific RIF plans.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling allows agencies to resume implementing Trump’s directive, it explicitly avoids weighing in on the legality of individual agency reorganization plans, leaving a battlefield of future lawsuits wide open.
For conservatives frustrated by decades of unchecked government bloat, this ruling feels like a long-overdue correction, though it’s worth noting the court’s careful sidestep on specifics—hardly a blank check for the administration.
Critics of progressive overreach in federal agencies might cheer this as a step toward efficiency, but the plaintiffs’ point about irreversible damage—“there will be no way to unscramble that egg,” as their filings put it—deserves a sober nod.