Supreme Court Clears Way for Mass Firings at Federal Agencies

[Jose Garcia]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: New York Times

The Trump administration can move forward with plans to slash the federal work force and dismantle federal agencies, the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday. The decision could result in job losses for tens of thousands of employees at agencies including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, State and Treasury.

The order, which lifted a lower court’s ruling that had blocked mass layoffs, was unsigned and did not include a vote count. That is typical in such emergency applications. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a public dissent.

The case represents a key test of the extent of President Trump’s power to reorganize the government without input from Congress. The justices’ order is technically only temporary, guiding how the administration can proceed while the challenge to Mr. Trump’s plans continues. But in practice, it means he is free to pursue his restructuring plans, even if judges later determine that they exceed presidential power.

In a two-paragraph order, the justices wrote that they had concluded that “the government is likely to succeed on its argument” that President Trump’s executive order announcing plans to downsize the government was legal. The justices added that they had not expressed a view on the legality of specific layoffs or reorganizations by the Trump administration.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/us/politics/supreme-court-federal-workers-layoffs.html

[elleng]

1. *The justices' order is technically only temporary,

guiding how the administration can proceed while the challenge to Mr. Trump’s plans continues. But in practice, it means he is free to pursue his restructuring plans, even if judges later determine that they exceed presidential power.

In a two-paragraph order, the justices wrote that they had concluded that “the government is likely to succeed on its argument” that President Trump’s executive order announcing plans to downsize the government was legal. The justices added that they had not expressed a view on the legality of specific layoffs or reorganizations by the Trump administration.

It was the latest in a series of recent victories for the Trump administration before the Supreme Court on emergency requests related to the president’s efforts to rapidly reshape government.

The decision followed a major ruling on June 27, when the Supreme Court limited the ability of judges to block President Trump’s policies nationwide.

Although the vote count was not listed, the order included a short public concurrence by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberals, suggesting broad agreement among the justices on the outcome. Justice Sotomayor wrote that she agreed with the court’s decision, but she added that the trial court was “free to consider” the legality of the specifics of the Trump administration’s downsizing plans.

In a 15-page dissent, Justice Jackson sharply criticized the court’s decision, calling it “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless” and arguing that it undercut the authority of trial court judges. “It is not this court’s role to swoop in and second-guess a lower court’s factual findings,” Justice Jackson wrote, echoing her dissent last month in the case limiting the power of lower-court judges to block administration policies nationwide.'>>>

[LoisB]

2. So, where does he start? I have no doubt that neither IT nor his minions have any idea what

the people in these Federal agencies do.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Mass firings at SCOTUS will never happen.

The world is upside down.

[Omaha Steve]

4. AFTER a review by forum hosts LOCKING

DUPE of https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143493094

Statement of Purpose
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.