Trump Wins Supreme Court Battle Over Education Layoffs \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Supreme Court allowed President Trump to proceed with his plan to dismantle the Education Department, reversing a lower court’s injunction. The decision permits the administration to lay off nearly 1,400 employees and advance a major campaign promise. Liberal justices dissented, warning of dangerous precedent and executive overreach.
Quick Looks
- Supreme Court lifted a block on Trump’s Education Department layoffs
- Nearly 1,400 employees will now be terminated as planned
- A lower court had ruled the layoffs would “cripple” the agency
- Justice Sotomayor dissented, calling the move legally questionable
- Trump’s plan is part of a broader federal workforce reduction
- Two lawsuits argue the department’s closure violates federal law
- Affected employees have been on paid leave since March
- Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the administration’s authority
- 21 states have filed suits over frozen education funding
- Critics say dismantling the agency threatens essential education services
Deep Look
The Supreme Court has given President Donald Trump a major legal victory, clearing the way for his administration to resume its controversial plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. In a decision released Monday, the high court halted a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily blocked the mass termination of nearly 1,400 federal employees. The ruling allows the administration to proceed with one of Trump’s hallmark campaign promises: slashing the size and scope of the federal government.
The decision came on the heels of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, who had issued a preliminary injunction blocking the layoffs and questioning the legality of the broader plan to wind down the department. Joun’s sharply worded opinion warned that such layoffs “will likely cripple the department,” a sentiment echoed by critics who view the move as a direct threat to the agency’s ability to fulfill congressional mandates related to financial aid, civil rights enforcement, and support for special education.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority did not provide a written explanation for pausing the injunction, a standard practice in emergency appeals. However, the court’s three liberal justices dissented forcefully. Writing on behalf of Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the court for facilitating what she described as “lawless” executive overreach.
“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon applauded the ruling, stating that the president has the constitutional authority to reorganize executive agencies. “It’s a shame it took Supreme Court intervention to move forward,” she said, adding that the ruling reaffirmed the president’s ability to make decisions about staffing and federal agency operations.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has cleared legal hurdles for Trump’s broader plan to reduce the federal workforce. Just last week, the justices ruled in favor of his initiative to cut down federal employment more generally. The court has also previously approved reductions in teacher training grants under Trump’s education reform agenda.
Monday’s ruling has sparked new legal and political battles. On the same day, more than 20 states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration over what they allege are illegal freezes on billions in education funding for after-school programs, summer learning, and other services vital to low-income communities.
At the center of the controversy are two consolidated lawsuits. The first, brought by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, and other advocacy groups, argues that Trump’s plan constitutes an illegal dismantling of a federal agency mandated by law. The second suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic state attorneys general, who contend that the layoffs undermine the Education Department’s statutory obligations.
Both lawsuits claim the planned job cuts will render the department incapable of performing critical duties assigned by Congress—such as distributing federal student aid, enforcing civil rights protections in education, and ensuring compliance with federal special education laws.
Employees affected by the layoffs have been on paid administrative leave since March, per the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. While Judge Joun’s order had prevented their formal termination, they were not permitted to return to their jobs. Without the court’s intervention, the layoffs would have been finalized in early June.
In early June, the department said it was “actively assessing how to reintegrate” the employees pending legal resolution. An internal email even asked workers to indicate whether they had found other employment, framing the request as part of “supporting a smooth and informed return to duty.” That reintegration will now likely be abandoned.
The implications of the court’s decision extend far beyond personnel changes. Dismantling a Cabinet-level department—especially one so intertwined with American public education—marks an unprecedented shift in federal governance. Critics warn it could destabilize critical services used by millions of students and families, particularly those in underserved communities.
For Trump, however, the ruling is a validation of a long-standing promise to trim what he calls “bloated, inefficient” federal bureaucracy. His allies argue that education policy should be returned to state and local control, and that the federal government’s role has overstepped its constitutional bounds.
With the Supreme Court now consistently siding with the administration on matters of federal agency control, the path is cleared for further restructuring efforts. Still, a legal and political backlash is mounting as unions, educators, and state leaders rally to stop what they call an “illegal and dangerous dismantling” of one of the most important federal agencies.
As the 2025 election season heats up, Trump’s education agenda—and the judiciary’s role in enabling it—will likely remain a focal point of national debate.
Trump Wins Supreme Court Trump Wins Supreme Court
You must Register or Login to post a comment.