Trump administration asks Supreme Court to leave mass layoffs at Education Department in place
The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court said U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold.
Joun's order has blocked one of the Republican president's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.
The judge wrote that the layoffs 'will likely cripple the department.'
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on Friday that Joun was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration.
The layoffs help put in the place the 'policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states,' Sauer wrote.
He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in April voted 5-4 to block Joun's earlier order seeking to keep in place Education Department teacher-training grants.
The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department.
One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general.
The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump to start TikTok sale talks with China, he says, with deal ‘pretty much' reached
Donald Trump has said he will start talking to China on Monday or Tuesday about a possible TikTok deal. The United States president said the US 'pretty much' had a deal on the sale of the TikTok short-video app. 'I think we're gonna start Monday or Tuesday ... talking to China – perhaps President Xi or one of his representatives – but we would, we pretty much have a deal,' Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Friday. Trump also said he might visit Xi Jinping in China or the Chinese leader may visit the US. The two leaders last month invited each other to visit their respective countries. Trump last month also extended a deadline to 17 September for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok, a social media app with 170 million users in the US. A deal had been in the works this spring to spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump said on Friday the US would probably have to get a deal approved by China. Asked how confident he was that Beijing would agree to a deal, he said: 'I'm not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a great relationship, and I think it's good for them. I think the deal is good for China and it's good for us.' Trump's June extension was his third executive order to delay the ban or sale of TikTok and gave ByteDance another 90 days to find a buyer or be banned in the US. Trump's first executive order giving TikTok a reprieve came on his first day in office – just three days after the supreme court ruled to uphold the ban. Trump issued the second executive order in April. The deadline for the sale or ban was then set for 19 June. Now, TikTok has until September. In a statement issued the same day, TikTok thanked Trump and JD Vance. 'We are grateful for President Trump's leadership', the statement said, and TikTok would 'continue to work with Vice President Vance's Office' to come to an agreement. Democratic senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate intelligence committee, accused Trump of sidestepping the law with an executive order. With reporting by Dara Kerr
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
America is now the deportation nation
Ever since he glided down a golden escalator more than a decade ago to announce his bid for the White House, Donald Trump's political career has been defined by immigration. Identifying the widening chasm between elite consensus and public opinion on the issue, he was denounced as a 'populist' for refusing to accept that the illegal entry of millions of people into the United States was somehow an economic and political inevitability. When his Republican rivals offered amnesties, he offered a border wall. But for all the Democratic hysterics, Trump's first term was mostly 'business as usual' on immigration. The border wall was only partially built, 'Big Farm-a' continued to employ off-the-books illegal labour, and deportation levels remained stable. That's no critique of the president: genuine action against mass migration was always going to require a total rewiring of the system, the creation of a 'deportation state'. Well, look out America, because your deportation state is nearly here. Among all of the huge changes that will be brought on by the passing of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill', the allocation of funding to immigration enforcement may perhaps be the most extraordinary. In the next four years, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) will end up with a budget larger than the US Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration – and the FBI. Detention capabilities will also be greatly expanded, which may allow ICE to approximately double the number of migrants it can detain. That's not even considering the money allocated to buying more planes for deportation and vastly expanding training and employment for specialised officers. There will be more money allocated to ICE than to any federal enforcement agency in America's history. The logistics of the deportation state go beyond mere funding. In the first 100 days of the administration, illegal border encounters totally collapsed. This trend has continued, now resulting in eerily quiet border towns and the seeming disappearance of undocumented workers in local hospitality and agricultural work. This disappearance is only partly thanks to the work of ICE, with merely the threat of being rounded up and deported to unfamiliar climes – El Salvador, South Sudan – apparently enough to push thousands of migrants into 'self-deporting', to borrow a term from the glossy Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Up-and-coming Republican state officials also know that the best way to boost their Maga credentials is to be seen helping the president in his efforts. James Uthmeier, the Florida State Attorney General, won immense credit with the administration for his role in organising the creation of a new deportation holding centre dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz', constructed and put into operation in a manner of days. Not every Republican is happy, of course. The old GOP business establishment has been lobbying to pause raids on farms, hotels and restaurants (with some success – ICE de-proritised these locations for raids a few months ago). But they know that any more overt displays of disloyalty will be harshly punished. The negative response to the expansion of deportation efforts can be just as useful to the administration: images from the recent LA riots, with protesters waving giant Mexican flags next to burnt-out cop cars, seemed to show the public precisely how committed to America some recent entrants to their nation really felt. Public opinion will be vital to the ongoing success of the deportation state, with Trump betting that citizens won't be too unhappy with some mistakes being made if the broader effort appears effective. So far, that bet seems to be paying off. There will be chaos and disruption, and no doubt a fair share of simple policy failures. But the scope of Trump's ambition on mass migration can no longer be questioned. The work of figures like Stephen Miller has sought to put intellectual ballast behind the president's rhetoric and actions on immigration. Yes, they want to restore borders, but also to strip away arguably outdated ideas like birthright citizenship and challenge the reflexive acceptance of multiculturalism over integration. There will be no going back, no way of treating 2016 as an aberration as in 2020. This is Maga institutionalising itself.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Here we go again: latest Trump tariff deadline looms amid inflation concerns
When Donald Trump unveiled his 'liberation day' tariffs in the spring, only to pull the plug days later as panic tore through global markets, his officials scrambled to present the climbdown as temporary. Three months of frenetic talks would enable the Trump administration to strike dozens of trade agreements with countries across the world, they claimed. 'We're going to run,' the White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told Fox Business Network. 'Ninety deals in 90 days is possible.' The 90-day pause Trump ordered on his steep tariffs is almost up, and 90 deals have not materialized. The US is again on the brink of launching a trade assault against dozens of countries, with rates including 27% on Kazakhstan, 47% on Madagascar and 36% on Thailand. 'I'm not thinking about the pause,' the president claimed during a briefing with reporters earlier this week, when asked about Wednesday's deadline. 'I'll be writing letters to a lot of countries. And I think you're just starting to understand the process.' Business leaders, lobbyists, economists and investors might disagree. Even officials in Trump's own administration have at times struggled to keep up. Another cliff edge has reared into view, forcing them to return to a familiar question: will he actually go through with this? 'I would suspect he's serious,' said Marc Busch, professor of international business diplomacy at Georgetown University. 'I think he's going to give a pass to the countries negotiating in good faith. But as of 9 July, a lot of the news will be big tariffs that the US hasn't seen since the 1930s are in effect.' A handful of agreements have emerged, cooling some tensions. A partial deal with the UK was first to emerge, before a delicate truce with China, and a pact with Vietnam. Officials are also said to be closing in on a 'framework' arrangement with the EU. But these breakthroughs have been significantly narrower than conventional free trade agreements, which can take years to hammer out. 'These aren't real trade deals. These are cessations of hostility,' said Busch. 'These are purchasing agreements that may or may not appease Trump for maybe a little while, thrown in with some aspirational stuff.' Even if Trump extends the 90-day pause next week, or strikes myriad deals at breakneck pace, current tariff levels are still much higher than they were before his return to office. The effects of this are still filtering through to prices for US consumers. 'The US economy is definitely, I would say, breaking more to the positive than would have been the narrative, or the expectation, kind of right after liberation day,' said John Waldron, president of Goldman Sachs. 'There's still an expectation that we're going to see more inflation over the course of the summer.' Mid-sized businesses in the US face an estimated $82.3bn in additional costs if the US maintains a 10% universal rate on all imports, as well as higher rates of 55% on China and 25% on Mexico and Canada, according to analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute. Such firms 'often play a crucial role in regional economies and as part of larger supply chains', said analysts at the institute. 'If they struggle, it may cause ripple effects for other businesses and their communities.' If the 'liberation day' tariffs are reimposed after the pause, costs would rise significantly. But even if they are not, the duties Trump has already introduced – and remain in force – are leaving companies with a hefty bill. The administration's playbook, of hiking tariffs on a country dramatically and then cutting them back as a result of an agreement, is 'like a retailer that one day increases prices by 100% and another day announces a 30% sale', said Busch. 'It's quite extraordinary that we're still debating this issue,' he added. 'American businesses are already eating and passing on parts of these tariffs to consumers.' No senior federal official has been more vocal about this reality than Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, who – despite Trump's public demands and attacks – has kept US interest rates on hold while waiting to see how the administration's trade strategy pans out. 'Someone has to pay for the tariffs,' Powell said at a recent press conference, noting how the cost filters through a supply chain, from the initial manufacturer through to the customer buying a product. 'All through that chain, people will be trying not to be the ones who pick up the cost. 'But ultimately, the cost of the tariff has to be paid and some of it will fall on the end consumer. We know that. That's what businesses say. That's what the data says from past evidence. So we know that's coming.' Trump does not see it this way, insisting that tariffs are taxes on other countries, rather than US businesses and consumers. Whatever happens over the next few days, those attempting to take a longer-term view believe the main actions he has taken in recent months – like imposing blanket 10% tariffs – could remain in place for many years to come. 'We think it's likely that high and broad-based tariffs are here to stay because, of all the purported goals of trade policy, they're proving most successful at raising revenue,' said Michael Pearce, deputy chief US economist at Oxford Economics. 'Given the fiscal challenges that lie ahead, those revenues will be hard for future administrations to replace.'
