This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted the Trump administration to keep several thousand probationary federal employees on the payroll while lower courts consider whether the downsizing measures are legitimate, marking another victory for the White House.
The Supreme Court’s judgment overturns a lower court finding that ordered the government to reinstate more than 16,000 probationary employees.
The decision is not final on whether staff will be permitted to maintain their positions, but it will have a huge impact on both workers and agencies in the interim.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented but provided no reasons. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the court should not have ruled on such a significant question in the context of an emergency application.
The order was the latest Supreme Court victory for the administration in a dispute stemming from President Trump’s recent flurry of executive actions. However, it was technical and tentative, as were the others. The justices stated that their order would remain in effect as the lawsuit proceeded.
The lawsuit involved a preliminary injunction given last month by a federal judge in California, which ordered the administration to restore more than 16,000 probationary employees it had fired from the Pentagon, Treasury, Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and Interior departments.
In his decision, Judge William H. Alsup of the Northern District of California recognized that “each federal agency has the statutory authority to hire and fire its employees, even at scale, subject to certain safeguards.”
The Supreme Court is on the verge of delivering a huge ruling that could help Republicans in the 2026 midterms.
Senior advisers to President Trump are telling top Republican donors that two forthcoming Supreme Court rulings could significantly strengthen the GOP heading into the 2026 midterm elections—and potentially reshape the party’s electoral advantages for years to come.
According to people present at a Republican National Committee donor retreat over the weekend, Trump advisers Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio said decisions involving political contribution limits and congressional redistricting have the potential to be “transformational” for Republicans, provided the Court rules in the party’s favor.
The advisers framed the cases as critical to the GOP’s long-term strategy and as developments that could influence both campaign fundraising and the balance of power in future House elections, Axios first reported.
The outlet added:
–LaCivita and Fabrizio — who steer the president’s cash-flush political operation and were senior strategists on his 2024 campaign — expressed confidence in the midterms despite doomsday projections about the party’s prospects.
–During a Q&A session with RNC chair Joe Gruters in New Orleans, LaCivita told donors the decisions by the conservative-led high court “have the ability to upend the political map,” a person in the session told Axios.
One of the cases is Louisiana v. Callais, while the second is called National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), Axios reported.
In the first case, the Supreme Court is preparing to rule on a major case involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the provision that bars states from diluting minority voting power in congressional redistricting.
Section 2 has been the basis for creating “majority-minority” districts, which are designed to give voters in predominantly black or other minority communities the ability to elect candidates of their choice.
Republican officials have long argued that the law amounts to federal overreach and forces the creation of districts that disproportionately benefit Democrats, while unconstitutionally considering race as a primary factor.
Democrats counter that Section 2 is essential to preventing racial discrimination in map-drawing and ensuring that minority voters receive fair representation in Congress, though they don’t address the constitutionality question.
The court’s decision is expected to have significant implications for future redistricting cycles and the partisan balance of the U.S. House.
Court analysts say that, based on the justices’ questioning during October’s oral arguments, a majority of the Supreme Court appeared open to weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
