Trump Wins Court Battle to Slash Government Jobs \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Supreme Court has cleared President Trump to proceed with mass federal workforce reductions, despite legal opposition and warnings of disrupted government services. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, citing severe consequences. Trump’s administration claims a constitutional mandate, with ongoing litigation continuing in federal court.
Quick Looks
- Supreme Court lifts lower court freeze on federal job cuts.
- Trump executive order targets major downsizing of agencies.
- Justice Jackson dissents, warning of constitutional overreach.
- Elon Musk formerly led DOGE agency executing the plan.
- Over 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation so far.
- Cuts affect Agriculture, State, Veterans Affairs, EPA, and others.
- Unions and cities warn of service collapse, file lawsuits.
- Case now returns to U.S. District Court under Judge Illston.
Deep Look
In a major victory for the White House, the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump’s sweeping plan to shrink the federal workforce to move forward, overriding prior court decisions that had temporarily halted the cuts. The decision gives the administration legal room to continue restructuring the government without first securing congressional approval, prompting widespread concern from unions, advocacy groups, and Democratic-led cities.
The justices issued a brief, unsigned order rejecting lower-court rulings that blocked implementation of Trump’s February executive order mandating large-scale workforce reductions across dozens of federal agencies. The high court clarified that it was not yet evaluating specific terminations, but was only considering the executive order and administrative guidance issued by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the agency leading the initiative.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in dissent, sharply criticizing the court for what she described as a growing pattern of endorsing Trump’s unilateral actions without full legal review. “This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it,” Jackson warned.
Her dissent underscores the stakes: labor unions and numerous plaintiffs, including the cities of Baltimore, Chicago, and San Francisco, have warned the cuts could slash staff levels at key agencies by as much as 40–50%, jeopardizing essential services from veterans’ healthcare to food safety.
Trump has argued repeatedly that he received a voter mandate to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, calling it bloated and inefficient. As part of his broader effort to reshape the U.S. government, he appointed billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk to oversee DOGE and launch the downsizing campaign. Musk stepped down from the role recently, though the policies he helped design remain in motion.
In a statement following the Supreme Court’s decision, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the ruling “a definitive victory for the President and his administration,” denouncing lower court judges who sought to “undermine the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers.”
Since the order went into effect earlier this year, the administration has confirmed that tens of thousands of federal employees have been impacted, either through terminations, administrative leave, or deferred resignation programs that allow workers to exit voluntarily with reduced benefits. Internal estimates suggest at least 75,000 workers have already left their posts under the program.
The legal battle over the cuts began in May, when U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the Trump administration must obtain congressional approval for such large-scale personnel changes. A Clinton-era appointee, Illston issued a nationwide injunction blocking the order, a decision later upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling.
That appeals court warned of potentially devastating consequences, citing threats to food inspection, veterans’ healthcare access, and environmental protection programs. Illston directed multiple departments to stop complying with the executive order and a follow-up memo jointly issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Despite those rulings, the Department of Justice pursued an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the executive branch has the right to manage federal personnel in the interest of efficiency and budget constraints. The court’s approval on Tuesday does not end the legal fight but lifts the injunction while litigation continues in Illston’s court.
The list of affected departments is long and includes some of the government’s most vital agencies: Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Interior, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, the National Science Foundation, the Social Security Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In response to the court’s decision, the coalition of unions, advocacy organizations, and city governments that brought the lawsuit released a joint statement criticizing the outcome. “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. Reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse without congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”
With litigation ongoing, the Trump administration shows no signs of backing down. The President has framed the downsizing effort as a long-overdue realignment of government priorities — part of his broader effort to strip down what he views as entrenched, inefficient federal bureaucracy. His critics, however, fear the consequences will be immediate and catastrophic.
As the case returns to Judge Illston’s courtroom, federal workers, agencies, and the communities that depend on their services remain in a state of uncertainty — caught between executive ambition and a deepening legal fight over constitutional authority.
Trump Wins Court Battle Trump Wins Court Battle
You must Register or Login to post a comment.