Today's News: Supreme Court Okays Education Department Layoffs

This decision is seen as a significant step in Trump’s broader efforts to reduce the size and influence of federal agencies, including his stated goal of dismantling the Education Department.

Terrence Dorsey

Jul 14, 2025

Photo: Frank Thorp V / NBC News

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

Date: July 14, 2025
Topic: Supreme Court Okays Education Department Layoffs
Summary: On Monday, July 14, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education, reversing lower court injunctions. This decision is seen as a significant step in President Trump’s broader efforts to reduce the size and influence of federal agencies, including his stated goal of dismantling the Education Department. Concurrently, a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the administration, seeking the release of $6.8 billion in withheld education funding. Both actions highlight a contentious legal and political battle over federal control and funding of education, with critics arguing the administration is overstepping its constitutional authority and jeopardizing vital programs.

Sources

Key Points

On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned 6-3 decision, lifted lower court injunctions, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education.
President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon aim to significantly reduce the size and influence of the Department of Education, with Trump having expressed a desire to eliminate the department entirely, arguing education should be controlled by states and that the department is ineffective or promotes a “radical left-wing agenda.”
The administration’s actions face significant legal opposition. A federal judge had previously blocked the layoffs, stating the administration’s true intent was to dismantle the department without congressional approval.
Separately, 24 states and the District of Columbia have sued the administration for illegally withholding $6.8 billion in congressionally appropriated education funds.
Critics, including dissenting Supreme Court justices and state attorneys general, argue that the administration’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, particularly Congress’s power of the purse and its sole authority to create or abolish federal agencies.
The withheld funding and staff cuts are projected to severely impact critical education programs, including after-school care, teacher training, English language learning, adult literacy, and services for children of migrant farmworkers. They are also expected to affect the department’s ability to carry out statutorily mandated functions like civil rights compliance and student aid oversight.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a strong dissent against the Supreme Court’s decision on layoffs, calling it “indefensible” and a grave threat to the Constitution’s separation of powers, accusing the majority of being “willfully blind” or “naive” to the implications.

Unique Highlights

The New York Times details the specific programs impacted by the $6.8 billion funding freeze, including $2.1 billion for teacher training, $1.4 billion for flexible funding (art, music, mental health, PE, technology), and support for children of migrant farmworkers, citing an example from Monterey County, California, where layoffs of about 30 employees were issued due to the withheld funds. It also cites a specific example of “misused” funds mentioned by the White House: a seminar on “queer resistance in the arts.”
CNN provides specific details about the immediate resumption of layoff plans, noting that employees initially fired in April would be let go on August 1. It also highlights the Department of Education’s functions, including managing federal aid for college students and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws, such as accommodating students with disabilities.
NBC News mentions that the Supreme Court’s decision on Education Department layoffs is a “separate dispute” from a ruling last week where the court allowed Trump administration layoffs across a “wide range of government agencies.” It also names Skye Perryman, CEO and President of Democracy Forward, as representing the coalition of groups that filed the lawsuit against the layoffs.
Fox News specifies that the Supreme Court’s decision on layoffs was issued “6-3 along ideological lines” and arose from “two lawsuits, including one brought by 20 Democratic-led states.” It also includes a direct quote from Education Secretary Linda McMahon from March, stating, “Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them – we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs.”
The Washington Post (on layoffs) details the specific offices within the Department of Education that have been particularly hard hit by the cuts, such as the Office for Civil Rights (lost half staff, 7 of 11 regional offices, deep backlog), the Federal Student Aid office, and the Institute for Education Sciences (research, Nation’s Report Card cut back). It also mentions the administration’s plans to eliminate office space in San Francisco, New York, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Cleveland, and consolidate staff in D.C.
The Washington Post (on funding freeze) reports that the administration had been “preparing to refuse to spend congressionally mandated funds to test the Impoundment Control Act” and that the plaintiffs sought relief for their states only, not a nationwide injunction, due to a Supreme Court ruling in June. It also details specific consequences for states like Delaware, Michigan, California, and New York, including the number of students affected and potential state-level layoffs.
The Wall Street Journal uniquely notes that polling indicates “most Americans want to preserve the department.” It also mentions that the lower court rulings had forced the Education Department to pause its plans to scale back, including putting on hold a plan to move certain career and adult-education grants to the Labor Department and discussions about shifting student loans to the Treasury Department.

Contrasting Details

Intent to Dismantle vs. Streamline: While President Trump has repeatedly called for the “immediate abolition” or “closure” of the Department of Education (CNN, NBC News, Fox News, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal), administration lawyers, including Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued to the Supreme Court that the layoffs were “internal management decisions” aimed at “streamlining” the department and “eliminating discretionary functions,” not eliminating it entirely (CNN, NBC News, The Wall Street Journal). Education Secretary Linda McMahon also stated that “closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds” (Fox News) and acknowledged that “it takes [a] congressional act to close the Department of Education” (The Wall Street Journal). Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, directly refutes the administration’s claim, stating the “record unambiguously refutes that account” and that the President and Secretary made no secret of their intent to ignore constitutional duties (CNN).
Impact of Layoffs on Functions: The Trump administration claims that despite the mass layoffs, the Department of Education “could continue to carry out its legally obligated functions” (CNN) and will continue its “statutorily required functions” (The Washington Post - layoffs, Fox News). However, plaintiffs, including states, school districts, and unions, argued that the reduced staffing meant the department couldn’t fulfill its legal obligations, such as reviewing higher education certifications for federal aid (Fox News) and disseminating research and investigating civil-rights complaints (The Wall Street Journal). Judge Myong Joun agreed, stating that the layoffs would “likely cripple” the department and that “a department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all” (CNN, The Washington Post - layoffs, The Wall Street Journal).
Legality of Withholding Funds: The Trump administration, through the White House Office of Management and Budget, stated that the $6.8 billion in education funding was being withheld while it conducted a review for instances of money being “grossly misused to subsidize a radical left-wing agenda” (The New York Times, The Washington Post - funding freeze). However, the lawsuit filed by 24 states and the District of Columbia accuses the administration of holding back the money “illegally,” violating the U.S. Constitution’s power of the purse and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which states a president cannot unilaterally refuse to spend appropriated money (The New York Times, The Washington Post - funding freeze). Democratic attorneys general and senators explicitly stated the money was being withheld “illegally” and that the administration was “picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow” (The Washington Post - funding freeze).

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