Supreme Court Asked to Reinstate Trump Workforce Order \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Trump administration has renewed its request for the Supreme Court to allow large-scale federal workforce cuts, despite ongoing legal challenges. A California judge blocked the plan, citing the need for congressional approval. Labor unions and major cities are suing to stop the downsizing.
Quick Looks
- Trump administration re-files emergency appeal with U.S. Supreme Court.
- Seeks permission to resume federal job cuts halted by judge’s order.
- Ninth Circuit upheld injunction, citing national impacts on food safety and veterans.
- Judge Susan Illston ruled Congress must approve major staff reductions.
- DOJ argues President has constitutional authority over executive staffing.
- Elon Musk briefly led the workforce downsizing agency before stepping down.
- Over 75,000 federal workers took deferred resignation packages.
- Cuts affected agencies from Agriculture to Veterans Affairs.
- Separate lawsuit challenges mass firings of probationary workers.
- Supreme Court requests response from unions and cities by next Monday.
Deep Look
The Trump administration on Monday filed a renewed emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking permission to continue its sweeping plan to downsize the federal workforce—a move currently blocked by a California federal court order. The appeal comes as a lawsuit by labor unions and several major U.S. cities—including Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco—continues to challenge the legality of President Trump’s executive actions.
Ninth Circuit Refuses to Lift Injunction
The legal battle escalated after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined, in a 2-1 vote, to stay the lower court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. Illston ruled that the administration cannot enact substantial reductions to the federal workforce without explicit authorization from Congress. Her order halted actions stemming from Trump’s February executive order and a subsequent Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) memo issued in conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
In siding with the plaintiffs, the appellate court warned that the downsizing could severely disrupt critical services, including food safety inspections and veterans’ health care.
The Administration’s Argument: Executive Power at Stake
In its new Supreme Court filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Judge Illston’s ruling “rests on the indefensible premise” that the president requires specific legislative approval to manage personnel within the Executive Branch—a position the administration believes violates core Article II powers.
“The President has the constitutional authority to oversee and restructure the internal workings of the Executive Branch without congressional micromanagement,” Sauer wrote.
Elon Musk’s Role and Resignations
The restructuring effort has been spearheaded by DOGE, which until recently was led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, a close Trump ally. Musk resigned from the post last week.
Since the rollout of the executive order, tens of thousands of federal employees have either been terminated, resigned under pressure, or placed on administrative leave. While the White House has not published official figures, sources familiar with the plan say that at least 75,000 workers accepted deferred resignation packages. Thousands of probationary employees, who typically have limited job protections, have already been let go.
Impacted Federal Agencies
Judge Illston’s injunction applies broadly, freezing personnel changes at multiple federal agencies including:
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Department of Energy
- Department of State
- Department of Labor
- Department of the Interior
- Small Business Administration
- National Science Foundation
- Social Security Administration
- Department of the Treasury
Broader Legal Context
This isn’t the only lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s aggressive downsizing tactics. A separate legal case in San Francisco, led by labor groups and nonprofits, seeks to reverse the mass termination of probationary workers. In March, Judge William Alsup ordered the federal government to reinstate those workers, but the Supreme Court issued a stay on that ruling, effectively freezing any reinstatements for now.
The current Supreme Court petition represents the second attempt by the Trump administration to lift the injunction. A previous appeal was withdrawn for technical reasons, but this week’s filing renews the fight, citing what the administration calls judicial overreach and an infringement on executive authority.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court has set a deadline of next Monday for a formal response from the labor unions and cities opposing the workforce cuts. If the Court grants Trump’s request, it could allow the administration to proceed with its downsizing while litigation continues.
Critics argue that the scale of the job reductions—without congressional debate or public oversight—sets a dangerous precedent for federal employment protections and democratic accountability. Supporters counter that the president is acting on a clear electoral mandate to reduce government waste and improve efficiency.
With millions of government jobs at stake and deep implications for federal services nationwide, the Supreme Court’s decision could significantly shape the future structure of the U.S. government workforce.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.