In an unsigned ruling, the justices overturned a lower court’s decision that had prevented the president’s February 13 directive, which called for “large-scale reductions in force.” This injunction originated from Judge Susan Illston, who was appointed by Clinton in Northern California. However, the Supreme Court stated that her ruling was based on her personal interpretation of the order’s legality, rather than on the actual reorganization plans, which were not even presented to the court, as reported by The New York Post.
“Given that the Government is likely to prevail on its assertion that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful — and considering that the other factors relevant to granting a stay are met — we approve the application,” the court stated.
Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, known for her liberal stance, concurred with the majority in granting the stay, although she clarified that she was not supporting the downsizing initiative itself—merely that it was premature to obstruct it.
“I concur with the Court’s stay because it allows the District Court to address those issues initially,” she noted. “The plans themselves are not currently before this Court at this time.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the ruling and asserting that it could result in “mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as established by Congress.”
She contended that Trump required congressional consent before proceeding with such measures, stating, “According to our Constitution, Congress possesses the authority to create administrative agencies and define their functions.”
However, the majority of the court disagreed. They concluded that the administration was acting within its rights to commence the implementation of the president’s strategy.
The action is part of a larger initiative by the Trump administration aimed at reducing the size of government and enhancing efficiency. The Department of Government Efficiency—previously headed by Elon Musk—has been managing the transition.
Labor unions and progressive organizations had filed lawsuits to halt the initiative, which would impact personnel at essential agencies such as Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, the Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs, the EPA, among others.
Attorney General Pam Bondi commended the ruling, stating on X: “Today, the Supreme Court prevented lawless lower courts from limiting President Trump’s power over federal personnel — yet another Supreme Court triumph thanks to [Justice Department] lawyers.”
“Now, federal agencies can achieve unprecedented levels of efficiency,” she continued.
This ruling contributes to the remarkable two months the president has experienced at the Supreme Court.
His most recent success in June involved the court agreeing to hear a Republican-led challenge to U.S. campaign finance laws that restrict the amount of money political parties can expend on behalf of particular candidates.
The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was initially presented to the court by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and two Senate Republican candidates who were campaigning at that time, including the current Vice President JD Vance.
The case addresses whether federal restrictions on campaign spending by political parties infringe upon free speech protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Petitioners urged the Supreme Court to examine the matter, asserting that the spending restrictions “significantly hinder political party committees from exercising their First Amendment rights: to fully associate with and advocate for their candidates for federal office.”
