Today's News: Supreme Court Allows Trump's Federal Workforce Reductions To Continue

This decision lifts a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the plans, which were challenged by a coalition of unions, non-profits, and local governments.

Terrence Dorsey

Jul 09, 2025

Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP

Thanks for reading The Newsie Project! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Date: July 8, 2025
Topic: Supreme Court Allows Temporary Implementation of Federal Workforce Reductions
Summary: The Supreme Court has temporarily cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with mass firings and reorganizations across federal agencies. This decision lifts a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the plans, which were challenged by a coalition of unions, non-profits, and local governments. While the Supreme Court’s unsigned order allows the administration to move forward, it explicitly states that it is not ruling on the legality of specific agency reduction plans, leaving that open for future litigation. The ruling represents a significant, albeit temporary, victory for the administration’s efforts to downsize the federal workforce, despite strong dissents from some justices who criticized the court for intervening prematurely.

Sources

Key Points

The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order that temporarily lifts a lower court’s injunction, allowing the Trump administration to implement mass firings and reorganizations across federal agencies.
The Court’s decision is based on the likelihood that the government will succeed in arguing the legality of President Trump’s executive order and a related memorandum.
The ruling explicitly states that it expresses no view on the legality of specific agency reduction-in-force (RIF) and reorganization plans, leaving those open for future legal challenges.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent, calling the decision “hubristic and senseless” and arguing that it undercuts the authority of trial court judges and prematurely releases the “President’s wrecking ball.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the decision, but emphasized that trial courts are still free to consider the legality of specific layoff plans, noting the executive order directs agencies to plan “consistent with applicable law.”
The legal challenge was brought by a coalition of labor unions, non-profits, and local governments, who argue that large-scale government reorganization requires congressional approval and that the president’s executive order exceeds his authority.
The Trump administration’s argument, presented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is that controlling federal agency personnel is a core Article II power of the president and does not require explicit statutory authorization from Congress.
The lower court, led by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, had initially blocked the plans, asserting that a president cannot initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.
This Supreme Court decision is part of a series of recent victories for the Trump administration on emergency requests related to reshaping government and challenging executive orders.

Unique Highlights

The New York Times details Judge Susan Illston’s initial two-week pause and subsequent longer-term block on the administration’s plans, preventing two dozen agencies from moving forward. It also specifically mentions 2,000 employees at the State Department targeted for layoffs.
CNN provides specific proposed cut figures: a reduction of some 10,000 positions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health; a 40% reduction in Internal Revenue Service positions; and the Department of Veterans Affairs initially planned 80,000 jobs cut, later reduced to 30,000 mainly through attrition.
NBC News lists the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, and U.S. DOGE Service as also being affected by the decision, in addition to 19 federal agencies. It also names the cities of Chicago and Baltimore among the local jurisdictions that joined the lawsuit.
Fox News specifies proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
The Washington Post highlights that Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor appeared to join the conservatives in the decision. It cites Judge Illston’s argument that nine presidents over the past 100 years have sought and obtained authority from Congress for executive branch reorganization, and details potential impacts like long phone wait times at the Social Security Administration and nearly all employees targeted for layoffs at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
The Wall Street Journal mentions Solicitor General John Sauer’s argument that the injunction compelled the government to “retain — at taxpayer expense — thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service… is not in the government and public interest.” It also contrasts President Clinton’s 1993 executive order for workforce reduction, noting that plaintiffs argued Clinton’s approach focused on attrition and buyouts with Congress’s blessing, unlike the current plan. The article also references a separate case in April where the Supreme Court lifted a lower-court order to reinstate about 16,000 federal employees.

Contrasting Details

Vote Count:
- Fox News states the decision was a “6–3 decision.”
- In contrast, The New York Times, CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal all state that the order was unsigned and did not include a vote count, noting this is typical for emergency applications.
Justice Sotomayor’s Alignment:
- The Washington Post suggests that Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor “appear to have joined the conservatives” in allowing the administration’s plans.
- However, The New York Times, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal describe Justice Sotomayor’s contribution as a “public concurrence” or writing separately to “concur with the court’s decision to lift the halt,” but consistently highlight that she stressed the district court was “free to consider” or could “still consider” the legality of the specific layoff plans, indicating a nuanced agreement rather than a full alignment with the conservative majority’s reasoning.

The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.

This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).

The Newsie Project