Latest news with #AgencyRIFandReorganizationPlan
Newsweek
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Ketanji Brown Jackson Gets Put 'In Her Place' by Justices: Scott Jennings
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been getting "dressed down" and "put in her place" in recent orders from the High Court, former George W. Bush adviser Scott Jennings said Wednesday night. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court via email for comment. Why It Matters The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued an 8-1 ruling to which Jackson countered in a blistering dissent, calling out the court for allowing President Donald Trump to take a "wrecking ball" to the federal government after it cleared the way for his administration to implement mass layoffs. Jackson, nominee of former Democratic President Joe Biden, was recently ripped by fellow Justice Amy Coney Barrett in another ruling related to birthright citizenship. Coney Barrett said Jackson's position on the issue was "difficult to pin down" adding that her opinion "is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself." What To Know While speaking with CNN's Abby Phillip on Wednesday night, Jennings argued that Jackson "apparently has a fundamental disagreement with the rest of the court about what the role of a Supreme Court justice is." "People from the ideological right and the ideological left on the court have had to put her in her place a couple of times here in this term. I would guess internally it's causing internal issues at the Supreme Court," Jennings said. Phillip then questioned if saying Jackson has been put "in her place" is fair, as a normal function of the Supreme Court is to disagree. "Liberals disagree with liberals, conservatives disagree with conservatives," Phillip said. In the 8-1 ruling over federal layoffs presented by Justice Elena Kagan, Jennings argues that her wording in the order is a shot at Jackson's argument for commenting on issues not before the court. The court's ruling presented by Kagan argued that "We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court." In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Trump administration rushed to the Supreme Court to get a ruling after a lower court ruled against the White House. "Instead of directing its attention and resources to fully litigating the merits of the challenge to its authority in the courts below, the Government rushed up the chain of review, seeking an emergency stay of the District Court's preliminary injunction from us," she argued. Trump has been outspoken on rulings in lower courts, specifically about his administration's immigration policies, and has called for judges to be impeached for decisions against his initiatives. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks at the 2025 ESSENCE Festival of Culture on July 5 in New Orleans. (Photo byfor ESSENCE) Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks at the 2025 ESSENCE Festival of Culture on July 5 in New Orleans. (Photo byfor ESSENCE) What People Are Saying Ana Navarro, CNN senior political commentator, on Wednesday: "And also listen, nobody puts baby in the corner, and nobody puts Ketanji in her place. She is a Supreme Court justice." She continued, "No, that's not putting her in her place, that's called disagreement, that's called dissenting. It's called a disagreement in the Supreme Court, which is perfectly OK. And if you're expecting a melanated girl from South Florida to shut up and play nice and not ruffle feathers ... you seem to have an issue with it," she said in response to Jennings. What Happens Next The Supreme Court's most recent term has ended, and the justices are not expected to make any new rulings in the immediate future.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows Trump to resume mass layoffs; Jackson dissents from ‘senseless' decision
The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a judge's order preventing the Trump administration from conducting mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy, for now. The court in its unsigned ruling said Trump's February executive order directing federal agencies to prepare for reductions in force (RIFs) is likely lawful. It enables federal agencies to resume implementing Trump's directive, though the high court left the door open for plaintiffs to challenge any agency's specific plan down the road. 'We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum,' the court's ruling cautions. But for now, it marks a major victory for the administration, which has brought a flurry of emergency appeals to the Supreme Court seeking to halt lower judges' injunctions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, calling the court's decision 'hubristic and senseless.' She criticized her colleagues for second-guessing the lower judge from the court's 'lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence.' 'In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,' Jackson wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another of the court's Democratic-appointed justices who often dissents alongside Jackson, said she agreed with some of her concerns. But Sotomayor sided with the administration at this stage of the case. 'The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance,' Sotomayor wrote. The order lifts a May 22 injunction issued by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, an appointee of former President Clinton, that indefinitely halted efforts to conduct RIFs at more than a dozen federal departments and agencies. She did so by finding Trump's executive order was likely unlawful and required congressional authority. 'Agencies are being prevented (and have been since the district court issued its temporary restraining order a month ago) from taking needed steps to make the federal government and workforce more efficient,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the Supreme Court. 'Absent intervention from this Court, that intolerable state of affairs promises to endure for months.' The judge's injunction came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor unions, advocacy groups and local governments. They urged the Supreme Court to keep the judge's ruling in place, warning the president will otherwise implement a 'breakneck reorganization' of the federal government before the merits of the case are settled. 'There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,' their attorneys wrote in court filings. The plaintiffs are represented by law firm Altshuler Berzon and several legal groups that regularly file legal challenges to the president's policies: Democracy Forward, Protect Democracy, State Democracy Defenders Fund and the Public Rights Project. The coalition said it was disappointed by the ruling but vowed to continue fighting.'Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy,' it said in a statement. 'This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.' The decision marks the second time the Supreme Court has intervened on an emergency basis to allow the Trump administration to terminate masses of federal employees. In April, the court allowed the administration to fire thousands of probationary employees over the dissents of Sotomayor and Jackson. The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to intervene in the RIFs case at an earlier stage, too, to lift a previous, temporary injunction. But the court declined to do so by running out the clock until that injunction expired, making the case moot. Updated at 4:21 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Politico
09-07-2025
- Health
- Politico
SCOTUS clears path for Trump's federal job cuts
Driving the Day SCOTUS: MOVE FORWARD WITH RIF PLANS — The Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday allowing the Trump administration to move forward with restructuring federal agencies through executive power, POLITICO's Josh Gerstein and Hassan Ali Kanu report. A judge in California had blocked the layoffs, finding they would likely violate federal law. But the justices granted an emergency appeal from the administration seeking permission to enforce a Feb. 11 executive order that instructed agencies to carry out dramatic 'reductions in force.' In April, roughly 10,000 HHS employees received termination notices — though a few hundred have been reinstated since then. Even so: The high court said it wasn't assessing the legality of any particular agency's layoff plans, nor any moves taken so far to implement those plans. Litigation over the downsizing efforts is sure to continue. But for now, the justices said, the administration can enforce the executive order and a memo from the Office of Management and Budget that implements it. The high court's unsigned decision — which the majority explained in two terse paragraphs — lifts an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who had blocked 21 agencies, including HHS, from complying with the mass layoff orders in May. Key context: It's still unclear exactly what the order will mean for federal health agencies. The Supreme Court's order specifies that it is granting the stay because 'the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.' However, it clarifies that 'We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum' — allowing other legal challenges to continue. The HHS reorganization is facing several other legal challenges, including one where a federal judge temporarily blocked much of the reorganization effort. In that case, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose in Rhode Island ruled that 19 states that sued over the layoffs and termination of congressionally mandated programs have shown 'irreparable harm' from the cuts. 'The Court concludes the States have shown a likelihood of success on their claims that the HHS's action was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to law,' DuBose wrote. That injunction, however, applies specifically to terminated employees in the CDC, the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, as well as employees who work on the Head Start program. WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY PULSE. The FDA is warning people not to inhale nitrous oxide products, often referred to as 'whippets.' Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. Research Corner SHIFTING JOURNAL POLICIES — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not a fan of major scientific journals. New HHS policies are starting to reflect that, POLITICO's Erin Schumaker reports. On Tuesday, the NIH said it would cap the amount that publishers of scientific journals can charge government-backed researchers to make their work publicly available starting in fiscal 2026. According to the NIH, some major publishers charge upward of $13,000 per article for immediate open access. The charges are in addition to subscription fees the government pays the publishers. High publishing costs are a double hit to taxpayers who already fund the underlying NIH research, the statement said. The NIH said it pays one publisher $2 million in subscription fees and tens of millions in processing charges. JAMA, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the cap. The move is just the latest iteration of Kennedy's HHS taking action to boost oversight of government research in the publications. In April, the agency moved up the timeline for making peer-reviewed NIH-funded research publicly available immediately without an embargo. The policy went into effect on July 1. And in May, Kennedy threatened to ban NIH scientists from publishing their work in certain journals. Speaking on the 'Ultimate Human' podcast, Kennedy said The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and The Lancet, three of the most influential medical journals in the world, were 'corrupt' and publish studies funded and approved by pharmaceutical companies. 'Unless those journals change dramatically, we are going to stop NIH scientists from publishing in them and we're going to create our own journals in-house,' he said. The NIH is the world's largest funder of health research. Both JAMA and the NEJM also received letters from the Department of Justice probing them for partisanship. At the time, a JAMA spokesperson said the journal had nothing to add when asked about Kennedy's remarks, while The NEJM and The Lancet did not respond to requests for comment. HHS also did not respond to requests for comment. Key context: Both NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary helped launch a publication, the Journal of the Academy of Public Health, to promote open conversation among scientists. Both officials are on leave from the journal's editorial board. In Congress IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED … House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) is urging Republicans to leave the door open to passing several Medicaid-related provisions that were cut out of the party's massive reconciliation package, POLITICO's Mia McCarthy reports. 'There may be a longer list of things that were kicked out by the Senate parliamentarian as noncompliant with the Byrd rule — I think we should make another run at that and look for ways to structure the provisions so that it's more fundamentally budgetary in impact and policy,' the Texas Republican said during the press call Tuesday afternoon. 'I suspect that's why they were kicked out.' Arrington specifically pointed to a provision stripped in the Senate from the House-passed megabill that would have prohibited Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgeries and another that would have banned noncitizens from tapping into Medicaid resources. Key context: Those provisions were dropped from the bill for not complying with the so-called Byrd rule, which limits the provisions that can be included in a bill moving through Congress through the reconciliation process. The reconciliation process allows lawmakers to skirt the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate. What's next: Echoing Speaker Mike Johnson's recent comments, Arrington said he suspects GOP leaders will attempt to do two more party-line packages in the 119th Congress, with the next one slated for the fall. … TRY, TRY AGAIN — A controversial plan that didn't make it into the final version of President Donald Trump's signature policy package has found new life, according to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), saying he believes he's secured White House and Senate leadership support to get another chance at repealing an expansion of Medicaid offerings, POLITICO's Josh Gerstein and Hassan Ali Kanu report. 'I think I pretty well have a commitment. They're going to do that,' Johnson told reporters of the prospects that Republicans would reconsider a provision that would end the federal government's 90 percent cost-share of funding for new enrollees in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Afterwards, new enrollees would have seen their medical costs reimbursed by the federal government at rates as low as 50 percent. Johnson added that he voted for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' largely because he was given assurances of the proposed cuts, despite his significant concerns about the deficit projections under the bill. Johnson and other proponents of the repeal argued that states have gamed the system by leveraging artificial increases in Medicaid spending to draw in more federal funding. And according to estimates, the policy change would have cut spending by $313 billion — putting a major dent in the package's overall price tag over which fiscal hawks fretted. Despite Johnson's insistence that he has a promise on pursuing this proposal in the coming months, nothing is set in stone. Senior Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House, meanwhile, continue to deny they made any side deals as a condition of winning over holdouts. AROUND THE AGENCIES TEXAS PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has declared a public health emergency in Texas after catastrophic flooding in the state's Hill Country resulted in at least 110 deaths. 'This emergency declaration allows health care providers from across the country to step in quickly and support survivors and their families without delay,' Kennedy wrote on social media platform X on Tuesday. Declaring a public health emergency for Texas allows Kennedy to tap into a variety of resources, including the Public Health Emergency Fund, to respond to the crisis. He can also grant extensions or waive sanctions if the state can't comply with its routine requirements to report data to HHS. Lobbying Horizon Government Affairs, a healthcare lobbying giant, has merged with Monument Advocacy, a private equity-backed lobbying firm. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Katelyn Cordero reports on a settlement reached in a class action suit over New York's troubled home care program.
The Hill
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court allows Trump to resume mass layoffs; Jackson dissents from ‘senseless' decision
The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a judge's order preventing the Trump administration from conducting mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy, for now. The court in its unsigned ruling said Trump's February executive order directing federal agencies to prepare for reductions in force, or RIFs, is likely lawful. It enables federal agencies to resume implementing Trump's directive, though the high court left the door open for plaintiffs to challenge any agency's specific plan down the road. 'We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum,' the court's ruling cautions. But for now, it marks a major victory for the administration, which has brought a flurry of emergency appeals to the Supreme Court seeking to halt lower judges' injunctions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, calling the court's decision 'hubristic and senseless.' She criticized her colleagues for second-guessing the lower judge from the court's 'lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence.' 'In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,' Jackson wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another of the court's Democratic-appointed justices who often dissents alongside Jackson, said she agreed with some of her concerns. But Sotomayor sided with the administration at this stage of the case. 'The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance,' Sotomayor wrote. The order lifts an injunction issued by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, an appointee of former President Clinton, on May 22 that indefinitely halted efforts to conduct RIFs at more than a dozen federal departments and agencies. She did so by finding Trump's executive order was likely unlawful and required congressional authority. 'Agencies are being prevented (and have been since the district court issued its temporary restraining order a month ago) from taking needed steps to make the federal government and workforce more efficient,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the Supreme Court. 'Absent intervention from this Court, that intolerable state of affairs promises to endure for months.' The judge's injunction came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor unions, advocacy groups and local governments. They urged the Supreme Court to keep the judge's ruling in place, warning the president will otherwise implement a 'breakneck reorganization' of the federal government before the merits of the case are settled. 'There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,' their attorneys wrote in court filings. The plaintiffs are represented by law firm Altshuler Berzon and several legal groups that regularly file legal challenges to the president's policies: Democracy Forward, Protect Democracy, State Democracy Defenders Fund and the Public Rights Project. The decision marks the second time the Supreme Court has intervened on an emergency basis to allow the Trump administration to terminate masses of federal employees. In April, the court allowed the administration to fire thousands of probationary employees over the dissents of two of the court's liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to intervene in the RIFs case at an earlier stage, too, to lift a previous, temporary injunction. But the court declined to do so by running out the clock until that injunction expired, making the case moot.
