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.'>>>
= new reply since forum marked as read