Supreme Court Clears The Way For Mass Federal Layoffs. What It Means For Workers Now
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order that allows the Trump administration to resume large-scale layoffs of federal workers. This action lifts a lower court injunction that had temporarily blocked the administration's plan. While the Court did not rule on the legality of the layoffs, the decision allows the administration to move forward while litigation continues.
The executive order, issued in February 2025, directs federal agencies to prepare for 'large-scale reductions in force,' or RIFs. It is part of a broader effort to eliminate what the administration describes as wasteful and unnecessary federal programs. A companion memo outlined a 4-to-1 attrition policy, allowing only one hire for every four employee departures.
Tens of thousands of federal workers have already lost their jobs or taken deferred resignation packages. Although the White House has not confirmed a specific figure, estimates from watchdog organizations suggest that more than 75,000 federal employees have been affected. Agencies impacted include the Departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked the administration from continuing the layoffs without congressional approval. She cited significant risks to critical government services, including food safety and healthcare for veterans. A panel from the Ninth Circuit affirmed that injunction, describing the administration's approach as sweeping and legally questionable. The Supreme Court's latest decision lifts that block, at least temporarily.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority. She argued that the Court was acting too early in the legal process and warned of lasting consequences. 'This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it,' Jackson wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the majority but noted that the lower courts are still responsible for determining whether the layoffs comply with the law. 'The plans themselves are not before this Court,' she wrote. 'We thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.'
The decision has introduced uncertainty into the lives of federal workers. Tom Spiggle, founder of The Spiggle Law Firm and author of Fired? Afraid You Might Be?, said the ruling could have significant consequences for individual careers and livelihoods.
'This isn't just about policy debates in Washington,' Spiggle said. 'It's about people losing access to steady work, benefits, and a career they've built. Many federal employees are asking whether they have any rights in this process.'
Spiggle emphasized that not all layoffs are legally permissible, even during a broad reorganization. 'If someone was targeted for dismissal because of a protected characteristic such as age, disability, or past whistleblowing activity, then that may be illegal,' he said.
He advised affected workers to document events carefully and consider speaking with an employment attorney if they suspect unfair treatment. 'In some cases, reductions in force can be used to disguise unlawful discrimination,' Spiggle explained.
The administration argues that the president does not need additional authorization from Congress to conduct agency-wide layoffs. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the Supreme Court's order, saying it 'stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel.'
Critics, including labor unions and several local governments, argue the opposite. In a joint statement, a coalition of plaintiffs said, 'This decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.'
The administration's actions now return to Judge Illston's courtroom, where constitutional and statutory questions about executive authority will continue to be litigated.
Spiggle said employees should act quickly if they believe they have been targeted unfairly. 'You only have a limited window to file claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Sometimes you have as short as 180 days from the date of the adverse action,' he noted.
Tom Spiggle noted that resources are available to help workers estimate the value of potential employment claims. 'Even if you aren't ready to file a case, understanding what your claim might be worth can help you make smart decisions,' he said.
For now, federal employees across the country are left waiting, unsure of when or if the next round of cuts will come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jackson County voters sue to stop Frank White, election boards from delaying recall
As Jackson County officials go back and forth debating who gets to schedule a looming vote to recall County Executive Frank White, Jr. — and when they get to do it — a new bipartisan lawsuit seeks to block White, a Democrat, from interfering with the timeline of the vote. The lawsuit — brought by former chairs of both the Democratic and Republican parties of Jackson County and two other county residents — seeks a court order upholding the proposed August 26 date for a recall election. It argues that the county charter mandates that a recall vote take place no later than 60 days after the necessary number of signatures are submitted to the relevant election boards. The lawsuit asserts that — regardless of what county legislators, executives or election officials say or do about it — the election's timeline was already set the moment voters submitted their petition with enough signatures at the end of June and is now non-negotiable. It asks a county judge to tell the election boards for Jackson County and Kansas City to proceed with the vote. The Jackson County Board of Elections declined to comment on the lawsuit or the current status of preparations for the August 26 election, citing legal advice to avoid further public statements about the recall election. 'Our attorneys are reviewing the lawsuit,' Republican director Tammy Brown said. After months of effort from grassroots organizers and a shadowy political action group, Jackson County voters collected 43,011 valid signatures, which is 109 more than the 42,902 needed to compel a recall. Organizers submitted the signatures on June 27, and the election boards certified them three days later. The last day a recall vote could take place per the county charter would be either August 26 based on the day the signatures were submitted, or August 29 based on the day the signatures were certified, the lawsuit reads. 'It takes time to plan and conduct an election, and in this unprecedented time, the Election Boards should be given the most time to be able to plan and hold an election but it must be before August 29, 2025,' the lawsuit reads. Jackson County legislators voted unanimously Monday on an ordinance set the recall election for August 26. Like White, seven of the nine legislators are Democrats. White has 10 days to veto the ordinance, or it becomes law. It takes six votes to override a veto. But the lawsuit argues that the timing of the election ultimately does not depend on Monday's ordinance and should go forward no matter what White or the legislature do. It says that different from other kinds of elections, the county charter is clear that voters petition the county's election boards directly to prompt a recall election and that the process should not involve the legislature or executive at all. Along with the county charter, the lawsuit references an ordinance passed by the legislature in 2023 detailing the procedure for an election to recall the county executive. That ordinance allows recall elections to be triggered directly by election board approval of submitted signatures, the lawsuit reads. White said Monday that the special election could cost taxpayers $2 million and hinted at taking legal action to block the legislature's effort to schedule the vote. He has said that an August election would violate his interpretation of the 2023 ordinance. To justify his reasoning, White referenced a line near the end of that ordinance that reads, 'If no legal election date is available within sixty days, the election will occur at the next available election after certification of the Petition.' DaRon McGee, chair of the Jackson County Legislature, issued a statement Wednesday accusing White of implementing 'delaying tactics and creating imaginary conspiracies' around the recall vote process. 'To delay or obstruct that vote isn't just unnecessary—it's a disservice to the very people we're supposed to represent,' McGee wrote. The lawsuit was filed by Kansas City attorney Phil LeVota, former chair of the county Democratic party, and former county Republican chair Mark Anthony Jones, along with two other residents: Fawn Collins and Jay Perry. It names as defendants White, the county legislature, county clerk Mary Jo Spino and the Kansas City and Jackson County election boards. In a statement issued Wednesday, White accused LeVota of being motivated by revenge after White declined to create a vacancy for him in the county's municipal court. 'I declined because expanding the government to create a job for a political insider is exactly what I was elected to stop,' White wrote. 'Even more concerning, Mr. LeVota has been openly lobbying legislators to name him interim County Executive if a recall succeeds, and at the same time, doing the bidding of the teams in the press.' The Star's Mike Hendricks contributed reporting.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's New Lie After Cutting $1 Trillion From Medicaid: We Gave It More Money!
WASHINGTON ― House Republicans who voted to pass President Donald Trump's tax bill last week know it's going to slash the federal Medicaid program by $1 trillion and kick millions of people off of their health care. But that sounds bad. And people already hate this law. So instead of saying that, Republicans are trying out a new way of talking about the bill they all voted for: just pretend they voted to increase Medicaid spending! 'I don't know how you can call any of this a cut when we are increasing Medicaid expenditures by $200 billion,' Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.) falsely claimed Tuesday on a conservative podcast, 'The Bob Cordaro Show.' Later in the show, Bresnahan also falsely claimed the law will lead to 'the largest deficit reduction in, I think, what will be 30 years.' It's not clear what the Pennsylvania Republican is talking about regarding the $200 billion, but he is being misleading at best and lying at worst. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has clearly laid out how Trump's tax-and-spending law will cut $1 trillion from Medicaid and increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. HuffPost is dedicated to holding lawmakers accountable and covering how their actions impact you, your community, and the country. Support journalism that demands transparency — A Bresnahan spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. In the same interview, he tried to tout that the law includes a new $50 billion fund to help rural hospitals survive the bill's devastating Medicaid cuts. But it's just simple math that $50 billion is nowhere near enough money to offset $1 trillion ― or 20 times more ― in cuts. Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), meanwhile, mused that there's been 'a ton' of misinformation about the tax law and said it actually increases federal Medicaid spending, which is false. 'Under this bill, there will be more federal money going into Medicaid under the Republican plan every single year for the forecastable duration of this bill,' Evans said last Thursday on the public radio show, 'Here & Now Anytime.' Asked what he is talking about, Evans' spokesperson Delanie Bomer said he is referring to the fact that Medicaid costs generally tend to increase every year ― a laughably weird point to make that entirely glosses over Republicans cutting $1 trillion from the program. Evans is essentially arguing that while the bill may cut $1 trillion from Medicaid and kick millions of people off of health care, the government is still paying for the increased annual costs of health care for whoever can still get Medicaid benefits. He's not talking about the elephant in the room, which is all the people who won't have health coverage at all. 'Medicaid spending is always going up,' Bomer said of Evans' argument. 'It's just going up at a lesser degree' because Trump's tax law will strip $1 trillion from the program. Asked why Evans voted for such a devastating cut to Medicaid, Bomer said the GOP congressman doesn't want 'illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded health care' and wants to make sure people meet work requirements to qualify for Medicaid benefits. Except undocumented immigrants are generally not eligible for Medicaid. And hospitals can't turn them away if they need medical attention, meaning the hospitals already on the tightest financial footing — rural hospitals in particular, which serve a lot of Medicaid patients — will be hardest hit by the loss in dollars. The work requirements argument is also misleading, because Trump's tax law imposes such strict new requirements that people who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid are now likely to fall through the cracks. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) is testing out a different new way to talk about his vote for Trump's tax law: He's trying to take creditfor Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) and the state legislature rushing to pass a state budget in order to lock in a higher match of federal dollars for Medicaid in the state under Trump's law. Because Wisconsin state leaders moved quickly to do this, the state will get $1 billion in new annual funding. In more than a dozen social media posts, Van Orden keeps insisting that if it weren't for him, his governor and state legislature wouldn't have gotten this money. Except Van Orden had nothing to do with their efforts. 'Congressman Van Orden never personally advocated to the governor or our office for the hospital assessment provision to be included in the state budget until after it was clearly already part of the state budget, he had nothing to do with the hospital assessment being part of bipartisan state budget negotiations with Republican leaders, and he had nothing to do with the fact that the governor decided to enact the state budget before the federal reconciliation bill was signed,' Evers' spokesperson Britt Cudaback told HuffPost on Tuesday. Asked why he keeps trying to take credit for this $1 billion when it appears he had nothing to do with it, Van Orden said the fact that the governor signed the state budget into law at a late hour shows they were listening to him. 'The only reason [Evers] signed the bill at 1:30 a.m. was to make the deadline I spoke and wrote to him about,' he told HuffPost. 'Period. Do that math.'
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OneRepublic Founding Member Tim Myers Announces Run for California Lieutenant Governor
Tim Myers, a founding member of OneRepublic, is running for California Lieutenant Governor Myers is running as a Democratic candidate In his campaign video, he described himself as a third-generation Californian, and criticized President Donald Trump's administrationTim Myers, a founding member of OneRepublic, has announced his bid for California Lieutenant Governor as a Democrat. Myers, who played bass with OneRepublic from 2002 to 2007, announced his new venture into politics on Wednesday, July 9. In a statement shared on his official website, Myers' campaign describes him as a third-generation Californian. The state's current lieutenant governor, Eleni Kounalakis, is running to succeed incumbent governor Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for re-election due to term limits. Kounalakis, 59, is the first woman and first Greek-American elected to the office in California history. Myers, 40, and his wife, Lauren, are parents to two daughters, whom the musician mentions as part of his motivation for running for office. In a campaign video set to a cover of The Mamas & The Papas' 1965 hit "California Dreamin,'" Myers critiques the Trump administration's handling of federal resources in response to the Palisades and Eaton wildfires that ravaged Los Angeles County in January. "You know what the real disgrace is? A president who insults 40 million Americans and is doing everything he can to harm a state with the fourth-largest economy in the world. Meanwhile, our own state leaders have done almost nothing to fight back," Myers said in the campaign video shared on his official website. Myers continued, "That's why I'm running for Lieutenant Governor to help protect and rebuild the California we love, to fight for working families, for kids priced out of college, for seniors struggling to get by, for every Californian who feels forgotten." Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "The status quo from career politicians just isn't cutting it," Myers said on his motivations for running for office. "They've either sold out, stayed silent, or cash checks from corporate lobbyists. Well, I'm not staying silent. I'm not a career politician. I'm a dad, a husband, a builder, and I'm stepping up because you don't choose the time, the time chooses you." The former OneRepublic bassist then elaborated on his career before the music industry, during which he worked as a barista and a janitor. He went on to establish Palladium Records. Myers previously announced plans to run against Republican Rep. Ken Calvert for California's 41st congressional district in April, the Associated Press reports. The site Myers launched for his congressional campaign now redirects to his lieutenant governor campaign site. Read the original article on People
