Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to temporarily move forward with sweeping reductions in force and reorganization plans across numerous federal agencies, handing the administration a procedural win in an escalating legal battle over executive authority.
In a brief unsigned order, the justices granted an administrative stay requested by the Trump administration, halting the enforcement of a lower court ruling that had blocked the moves. The stay does not resolve the case on the merits but allows the president’s directives to proceed while the litigation continues.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, writing a sharply worded opinion in which she called the court’s intervention “hubristic and senseless,” warning that allowing Trump’s plans to go into effect could cause “irreparable harm.”
Widespread Reorganization at Stake
At the center of the dispute is a May ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of California, who said that while the president has broad powers under Article II of the Constitution, he cannot unilaterally dismantle or radically shrink federal agencies without the involvement of Congress.
“Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates,” Illston wrote, adding that the president must “partner with Congress” in such sweeping efforts.
Her decision blocked provisions of Trump’s executive order and a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)workforce memo affecting 19 federal agencies and key executive offices including the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. DOGE Service.
Trump Administration Defends Authority
The Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argued that Illston’s ruling was built on an “indefensible premise” that the president needs legislative permission to exercise what he termed core Article II powers.
“Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland of this authority,” Sauer wrote. “The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing.”
The Trump administration insists that the president is acting within his constitutional rights to restructure the executive branch and reduce costs, framing the effort as essential to eliminating waste and bureaucracy.
Labor Unions and Cities Oppose Cuts
The legal challenge was brought by a coalition of public employee unions, nonprofit groups, and local governments, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the cities of Chicago and Baltimore.
Their attorneys warned that allowing the cuts would mean that “statutorily required and authorized programs, offices, and functions across the federal government will be abolished,” jeopardizing services that millions of Americans rely on.
In a joint statement, the coalition called the Supreme Court’s action “a serious blow to our democracy.”
“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,” they said.
Next Steps in the Legal Battle
The administrative stay granted by the Court is temporary and allows time for the justices to consider whether to take up the full case. The litigation could shape how far a president can go in reorganizing the federal workforce without congressional consent.
The ruling is also politically significant. Trump has made shrinking the federal government a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, with proposals to consolidate departments, slash staff, and eliminate entire programs, many of which were laid out in the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
If the Court ultimately sides with the Trump administration, it could set a precedent expanding presidential power over the executive branch, with far-reaching implications for the future of federal governance.
