Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to resume dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, granting an emergency request to lift a lower court ruling that had blocked the termination of nearly 1,400 federal employees.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court’s conservative majority sided with the Trump administration, pausing a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun of Massachusetts. Judge Joun had halted the layoffs, warning that the plan could “cripple the department” and violate federal law. A federal appeals court upheld Joun’s injunction, but the Supreme Court’s move now gives the administration the green light to move forward with the department’s closure plan.
The decision, typical of the Court’s emergency docket, came without a detailed explanation from the majority. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a pointed dissent, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, arguing the Court was complicit in “legally questionable action.”
“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,” Sotomayor wrote.
Trump’s Plan to Eliminate the Department
Dismantling the Department of Education has been one of Trump’s signature campaign promises, which he has characterized as part of a broader effort to reduce the size of the federal government and return control of education to states and local communities.
Under the plan, the department’s key functions — including student financial aid, special education support, and civil rights enforcement — would be either eliminated or absorbed by other federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor or Health and Human Services. Critics warn this could disrupt education policy nationwide and leave millions of students and families vulnerable.
More than 1,100 civil service employees and nearly 300 political appointees and senior staff have been on paid administrative leave since March. According to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), these workers were initially protected from termination by Judge Joun’s ruling. The administration had not allowed them to return to work but had recently begun assessing who might be reintegrated — a process now likely abandoned.
Legal Challenges and Widespread Opposition
The Supreme Court’s intervention is the latest development in two major lawsuits opposing the Education Department’s closure:
-
One suit, backed by the American Federation of Teachers, was filed on behalf of school districts in Somerville and Easthampton, Massachusetts, arguing the dismantling would violate federal statutes mandating support for public schools.
-
The second suit was brought by a coalition of 21 Democratic state attorneys general, who contend the move is illegal and undermines federal responsibilities, particularly in civil rights, disability accommodations, and student lending.
Both lawsuits argue that the administration’s actions exceed executive authority and disregard congressional mandatesfor federal education policy.
What’s Next for the Department and the Courts
With the Supreme Court’s decision, the administration can now proceed with the termination of the affected employees, likely beginning immediately. The Justice Department has indicated it will continue defending the legality of the Education Department’s closure in the ongoing lawsuits, even as the department’s offices are vacated and operations cease.
Meanwhile, education advocates, unions, and civil rights groups are planning additional legal challenges and organizing nationwide protests.
AFGE Local 252 called the Supreme Court’s decision “a devastating blow to public education and government accountability.” In a statement, the union added, “Today’s ruling rewards executive overreach and punishes workers who dedicated their careers to serving America’s students.”
A Reshaped Federal Landscape
The ruling marks a watershed moment in the Trump administration’s broader campaign to streamline or eliminate federal agencies, with similar efforts underway at the State Department, USAID, and other departments. Trump and his allies argue such moves are necessary to cut bureaucracy and increase state-level autonomy.
But critics warn the closures set a dangerous precedent — one that threatens the integrity of federal governance and leaves vital public services in limbo.
“This is about more than just education,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “This is about whether a president can ignore the law to dismantle an entire agency simply because he doesn’t like it.”
