Overview:
The Supreme Court paused a lower court’s order requiring the reinstatement of nearly 1,400 Education Department employees, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with its controversial plan to dismantle the department through mass layoffs and program transfers.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court order requiring the Department of Education to reinstate nearly 1,400 employees laid off earlier this year. The unsigned ruling blocked a May decision by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, who concluded the administration lacked the authority to “effectively dismantle the Department” through a sweeping reduction-in-force (RIF).
Within two hours of the ruling, the Department of Education resumed its downsizing plans, issuing notices to impacted employees and reaffirming that the layoffs—set to be finalized by August 1—were “not a reflection upon [their] performance or conduct.”
The layoffs stemmed from a March 11 announcement by the Department of Education, made just a week after Linda McMahon was appointed Secretary of Education. The department planned to cut approximately 1,378 employees as part of what McMahon called a push for “efficiency, accountability, and directing resources where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers.”
Just nine days later, President Donald Trump issued an executive order instructing McMahon to take “all necessary steps” to close the department. Following swift public backlash, Trump said essential programs—such as federal student loans and services for students with disabilities—would be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Small Business Administration.
Judge Joun blocked those efforts on May 22, ordering the reinstatement of terminated staff and halting the transfer of key education programs. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court on June 6, arguing Joun had overstepped his authority.
In a strongly worded 19-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the Court’s decision to intervene. “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” she wrote, warning that Trump’s efforts to close the Department without congressional approval mark a troubling break from constitutional norms.
“Presidents have recognized they lack the unilateral authority to eradicate a Department that Congress has tasked with fulfilling statutory duties.” However, President Donald Trump, she said, “has made clear that he intends to close the Department without Congress’s involvement.”
justice sonia sotomayor
Sotomayor further argued the ruling “will unleash untold harm,” leaving students vulnerable to discrimination, sexual assault, and civil rights violations without federal oversight, while prioritizing the government’s ability to avoid paying unlawfully fired employees.
The plaintiffs in the case—a coalition of 19 Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, two public school districts, and several teachers’ unions—sued in federal court in Massachusetts, claiming the RIF violated the Constitution and federal administrative law. They warned that dismantling the department would inflict long-term damage, particularly on higher education institutions that rely on federal oversight and student aid certification.
NEA President Becky Pringle condemned the Court’s ruling and vowed continued resistance. “NEA will continue our efforts to protect students, educators, and school districts from Trump’s illegal and destructive dismantling of the Department of Education,” she said, warning of larger class sizes, reduced services, and eroded civil rights protections.
“NEA will continue our efforts in and outside of court to protect students, school districts, parents, and educators from Trump’s illegal and destructive dismantling of the Department of Education, which will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training and career and technical education programs, making higher education further out of reach, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections” said Becky Pringle, NEA President.
Becky pringle, nea president
In contrast, Secretary McMahon praised the Supreme Court’s decision. “Today, the Court confirmed the obvious: the President, as head of the Executive Branch, has the authority to manage agency staffing and operations,” she said in a press statement.
“Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies.”
Linda McMahon, secretary of education
For now, the nearly 1,400 affected employees—on paid leave since March—face imminent termination, as the Trump administration moves swiftly to restructure the Department of Education amid ongoing legal and political battles.
