Supreme Court OKs Trump's mass layoffs of federal employees across more than a dozen agencies
By an 8-1 vote, the justices lifted an order from a federal judge in San Francisco who blocked mass layoffs at more than 20 departments and agencies.
The court has sided regularly with President Trump and his broad view of executive power on matters involving federal agencies.
In a brief order, the court said 'the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful,' referring to the plans to reduce staffing. But it said it was not ruling on specific layoffs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the decision on the grounds that it was narrow and temporary.
Dissenting alone, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should not have intervened.
'Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions,' she wrote.
Since mid-April, the court has handed down a series of temporary orders that cleared the way for Trump's planned cutbacks in funding and staffing at federal agencies.
Litigation will continue in the lower courts, but the justices are not likely to reverse course and rule next year that they made a mistake in allowing the staffing cutbacks to proceed.
The layoff case posed the question of whether Congress or the president had the authority to downsize agencies.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco said Congress, not the president, creates federal agencies and decides on their size and their duties.
'Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress's mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress,' she said on May 22.
Her order barred more than 20 departments and agencies from carrying out mass layoffs in response to an executive order from Trump.
They included the departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation and Veterans Affairs as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration and the National Science Foundation.
She said the planned layoffs are large. The Health and Human Services department plans to cut 8,000 to 10,000 employees and the Energy Department 8,500. The Veterans Administration had planned to lay-off 83,000 employees but said recently it will reduce that number to about 30,000.
Labor unions had sued to stop the layoffs as illegal.
Illson agreed that the agencies were not acting on their own to trim their staffs. Rather, Trump's Office of Management and Budget under Russ Vought was leading the reorganization and restructuring of dozen of agencies. She said only Congress can reorganize agencies.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, turned down the administration's appeal of the judge's order.
Appealing to the Supreme Court, Trump's lawyers insisted the president had the full authority to fire tens of thousands of employees.
'The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing,' Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said in his appeal, 'and the President does not need special permission from Congress.'
He said federal law allows agencies to reduce their staffs.
'Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has ever intended to make federal bureaucrats a class with lifetime employment, whether there was work for them to do or not,' Sauer wrote.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling
A federal judge's decision to temporarily prevent the Trump administration from stripping birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. is an early test of the legal landscape, after the Supreme Court greatly restricted the ability of judges to issue nationwide blocks of presidential policies. On Thursday morning, in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a lawsuit that seeks to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship, and granted a temporary block of President Donald Trump's order from going into effect throughout the country. The decision brought hope to pregnant women and groups who were dealt a blow two weeks ago when the Supreme Court largely restricted the ability of federal judges to use one of the strongest tools at their disposal — the use of nationwide injunctions to prevent federal policies from going into effect. The Supreme Court decision would have allowed Trump's executive order to go into effect on July 27 in parts of the U.S. In the aftermath, immigrants and their attorneys pivoted to seeking class action status for immigrant babies and parents in hopes of finding another way to stop the president. 'It was clear that the Supreme Court decision had closed one very important door for challenging policies, but it also in the process opened other doors,' Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute, told NBC News. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and multiple lawsuits challenging it remain ongoing. But its decision on June 27 left open an important avenue for plaintiffs to try to stop federal government policies nationwide through the use of class action lawsuits. 'This case is an early test for how litigants will adapt to the legal landscape after the Supreme Court's death blow to national injunctions,' Chishti said. 'It normally takes months, if not years, for an altered landscape to be observed. But since this is such an important constitutional issue, we are getting a chance to revisit the landscape within two weeks.' Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The order also denies citizenship to children whose mothers are temporarily in the United States, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or as tourists, or who are students and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. In the written order issued Thursday, Laplante wrote that the court certified class action status to the following group in issuing the nationwide block of Trump's order: 'All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously denied issuing a nationwide injunction in a similar case earlier this year. Instead, he had issued a narrower order where he only blocked the policy from being enforced on members of groups that would be affected by Trump's order. But his order on Thursday effectively blocked Trump's executive order from being enforced nationwide, at least temporarily. 'This was a ruling that certified a preliminary class of folks across the nation from a judge who was skeptical of nationwide injunctions, and so I think it shows that the class action mechanism is a viable one, that courts are willing to entertain,' said Haiyun Damon-Feng, an immigration and constitutional law professor at Cardozo School of Law. Cody Wofsy, the American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney in the case, said after Thursday's court hearing that Laplante's order was 'going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to NBC News that the decision was 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' 'This judge's decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures. The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,' Fields said in the statement. The Trump administration has seven days to appeal Laplante's temporary block to a higher court, and the issue could find itself back at the Supreme Court to determine if the judge's order complies with last month's ruling. 'It's not the end right of the birthright question. We are probably going to see more fights take place over procedure, over the question of class certification, as well as the question of birthright citizenship on the merits,' Damon-Feng said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Karoline Leavitt Just Made A Trump Claim So Ridiculous That Even Republicans Are Calling It Out
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt managed to unite many on the left and right alike on Thursday with a claim about President Donald Trump so over-the-top that neither side was buying it. Leavitt shared a link on X to a USA Today column arguing that Trump is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Twitter: @PressSec Related: The text of Leavitt's post on X was also the headline of the story: 'Trump deserves Nobel Peace Prize. He's achieved more than those who've won before.' The column argued that Trump's attack on Iran last month stopped the nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Trump himself claimed the strike 'totally obliterated' Iran's facilities. Analysts have been more measured, saying the strikes may have only set Iran's nuclear program back by a few months. The column also credits Trump for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and notes that he is trying to broker one between Israel and Hamas as well. Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had nominated Trump for the honor. The Nobel Peace Prize has been a sore spot for Trump for years. He's complained repeatedly about not getting one, has griped that President Barack Obama has one, and insisted that he should have had 'four or five' of them by now. But critics pointed out that Trump bombed Iran before the ceasefire, and that the United States has been providing Israel with weapons in its various offensives, among other reasons, Trump shouldn't get the prize. They fired back on X: @seanrcallaghan @gamboleer Related: @backavatar @CassandraRules Twitter: @kranbjam @vanranstmarc Related: @thomasstjames3 @evanakilgore @butlerlonney @healthranger @criticerx @voteharrisout Related: @barnes_law @shirokanechoja Twitter: @PatriotJoe13 Twitter: @JonMadison711 Twitter: @DeGeneralDimes This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:

USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Mamdani's rise in NYC could open the door for an AOC presidential run
Everybody seems to be watching as Zohran Mamdani campaigns for New York City mayor. His win could open the floodgates for a socialist movement within the Democratic Party. As the Democrats continue to soul-search in the wake of President Donald Trump's recapture of the White House, certain members of the left view this as an opportunity to appropriate the party for their own means. Democrats are still searching for a path forward, and a socialist rebellion within the party could be it. We'll know if that is the case from the 2026 midterm elections, but the socialist left will have its first test this fall. New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's fate in the November New York City mayoral race could be a forecast for the fate of far-left candidates in the 2026 and 2028 federal elections. Success by Mamdani, a democratic socialist, could then lead to the presidential campaign of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. His failure could end her run before it starts. Democrats will decide that in November. Socialists looking to expand foothold in Democratic Party Trump proved that a populist force could win by being disruptive, even if the party establishment is against them at the beginning. The very same can happen to Democrats as socialists and liberals work to respond to MAGA's takeover. A 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that young adults actually slightly favor socialism over capitalism, and that 42% of young Democrats had favorable views of democratic socialist political leaders. As this group ages further into the electorate, the socialists already established see an opportunity to increase their presence, and those looking to break into positions of power are taking advantage of it. With Mamdani, Democrats flirt with full-tilt socialism. But his plan is alarming. | Opinion Mamdani's jump to the Democratic nominee for mayor is one such example. At the same time, America's most well-known (and perhaps most politically competent) young democratic socialist, AOC, has likely set much higher goals. The de facto leader of the democratic socialist movement, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, doesn't seem to be running for president a third time, but he has been helping AOC raise her national profile through their 'fighting oligarchy tour,' a speaking tour in which the pair spread their anti-elite message. AOC has not made an explicit indication of whether she would be gunning for the 2028 presidential nomination. Still, others have speculated she may pursue Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's seat in 2026, and polls indicate she may have a good opportunity to challenge that seat. The Democratic Party is lost in the wake of Trump's second presidential victory, and the longer the Democrats drift through the second Trump presidency without direction, the more opportunity radicals will have to capture that direction for themselves. Opinion: What can Republicans learn from a New York socialist? A great deal, actually. Socialists have their first major test of the cycle soon One of the reasons I have argued that Democrats need to begin finding their footing now is so that they don't get swept into the same populist trap that Republicans have had their party captured by since 2016. Success from candidates like Mamdani is evidence of this trend already beginning, and that liberal voters might be ready to speed things along. Mamdani won his primary just weeks ago, but he is already back on the campaign trail against several other candidates who are bickering over whom to coalesce support behind. A rejection of Mamdani in November would be a serious blow for the prospective AOC presidential campaign, as well as other socialists looking to make a political leap. AOC and her allies are likely to see the success of Mamdani as evidence of socialist viability, at least enough so in progressive cities to make the prospect of a presidential run enticing. While they should be careful against extrapolating success in New York to potential success at a statewide or national scale, Mamdani's victory still could be a good omen for socialists expanding their profile. Democrats face a dilemma: choosing between alienating parts of the left and integrating socialists into their movement, a challenge they also encountered when navigating Sanders' issues in the 2016 and 2020 presidential races. Democrats and Americans generally will learn a great deal more about the seriousness of this trend over the next several years. AOC will be watching and waiting. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.