Trump Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Education Layoffs/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain mass layoffs at the Department of Education, arguing a lower court exceeded its authority by halting the agency’s dismantling. The case marks a pivotal battle in Trump’s long-standing campaign to eliminate the federal department.
Trump’s Education Department Cuts Quick Looks
- Trump asks SCOTUS to uphold firing of 1,400 workers at the Education Department.
- District judge previously halted the layoffs, calling them potentially crippling.
- Administration argues move aligns with states’ rights, limits federal overreach.
- Lawsuits claim mass terminations are effectively an illegal department closure.
- Solicitor General says judge imposed personal policy preferences.
- Massachusetts schools, teachers’ unions, and 21 states challenge cuts.
- SCOTUS already sided with Trump on previous Education-related appeal in April.
Deep Look: Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Preserve Education Department Layoffs
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to allow its mass layoffs at the Department of Education to remain in effect, challenging a lower court ruling that blocked one of the president’s most controversial reform efforts.
In an emergency appeal filed Friday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the court to pause an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, which reinstated nearly 1,400 Education Department employees and suspended the administration’s broader plan to downsize and eventually dismantle the agency.
“The district court improperly inserted its own policy preferences,” Sauer wrote, accusing Judge Joun of overstepping his judicial authority.
Legal Showdown Over Department’s Future
At the heart of the case is Trump’s long-standing pledge to eliminate the Department of Education, a promise that has moved closer to reality through executive action and targeted budget cuts. The mass layoffs were part of a broader restructuring effort to shift responsibilities traditionally held by the department—such as education grants, civil rights enforcement, and student aid—back to the states.
But Judge Joun’s ruling last month halted that plan, siding with a group of plaintiffs who claim the terminations effectively amount to an illegal shutdown of a congressionally mandated department.
“The layoffs will likely cripple the department,” Joun wrote in his order, asserting that Congress—not the president—has the authority to close a federal agency.
That decision has been backed by two consolidated lawsuits, one from a group of Massachusetts school districts and the American Federation of Teachers, and the other from 21 Democratic attorneys general. Together, they argue that the federal government is failing its statutory duties to uphold civil rights laws, manage financial aid programs, and support special education.
Previous Court Action Signals Division
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration’s Education Department reforms have faced legal scrutiny. In April 2025, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to block a previous ruling by Judge Joun that had attempted to preserve teacher-training grants threatened by administrative rollbacks.
That decision could foreshadow a willingness among the conservative-leaning justices to favor the executive branch’s authority on departmental management.
The latest appeal attempts to reinforce that precedent, with Sauer stating in Friday’s filing that the layoffs are key to the administration’s agenda of limiting the federal government’s role in education and restoring control to state-level entities.
“Streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions” is consistent with this philosophy, he argued.
Broader Implications for Public Education
The Supreme Court’s ruling—should it agree to hear the case—could have major implications for the structure of public education governance in the U.S. The Trump administration views the Department of Education as bloated and redundant, claiming states are better suited to tailor and implement education policies.
But critics see the move as ideological overreach, one that puts federal civil rights enforcement and funding equity at risk.
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), speaking in a related context, recently criticized similar Republican actions:
“They’re using education policy as a backdoor for dismantling federal support and turning a blind eye to equity.”
What Comes Next?
The Justice Department’s appeal is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, which may decide whether to take up the case in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, the Education Department remains partially staffed, operating under temporary funding and personnel constraints until a final legal resolution is reached.
As Trump intensifies his push to eliminate what he calls “unnecessary federal bureaucracy,” this case may prove to be the defining legal test of how far presidential authority can go in dismantling a federal agency created by Congress.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.