Supreme Court Upholds Presidential Authority in Federal Workforce Downsizing

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the path for President Donald Trump’s administration to proceed with its controversial plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce. This decision came despite strong warnings about potential losses of critical government services and widespread job displacements for hundreds of thousands of federal employees.

The justices’ ruling effectively overturned lower court injunctions that had temporarily halted the proposed cuts, which were spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In an unsigned order, the court clarified that its decision pertained specifically to an executive order issued by then-President Trump and a subsequent administration directive instructing agencies to implement job reductions, rather than specific, individual cuts.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cast the sole dissenting vote, expressing concern over what she described as her colleagues’ “demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.” Jackson highlighted the severe real-world ramifications, stating that the executive action threatened “mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it.”

This Supreme Court action marked another significant victory for the Trump administration, which had seen the justices consistently allow its initiatives to remake the federal government to move forward. The Court’s interventions frequently stemmed from emergency appeals filed by the Justice Department, challenging lower-court rulings that were viewed as improperly encroaching on presidential authority.

Then-President Trump had consistently asserted that voters had granted him a mandate for these changes. Billionaire Elon Musk had initially been tapped to lead the effort through DOGE, though he later departed from the role. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields hailed the ruling as “another definitive victory for the President and his administration,” criticizing what he termed “continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges.”

While no official figures for the total job cuts were available, tens of thousands of federal workers had already been terminated, opted for deferred resignation programs, or placed on leave. At least 75,000 federal employees had reportedly taken deferred resignation, with thousands of probationary workers also let go.

Earlier, in May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston had ruled that the Trump administration required congressional approval for such extensive reductions to the federal workforce. A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, in a 2-1 vote, declined to block Illston’s order, citing potential broader impacts on essential services like food safety and veterans’ healthcare. Judge Illston, a Clinton nominee, had directed numerous federal agencies to cease implementing the president’s workforce executive order, signed in February, and a subsequent memo from DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management.

Labor unions and nonprofit organizations that had challenged the downsizing presented the justices with various examples of the anticipated consequences, including projected 40% to 50% cuts at several agencies. Cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, and San Francisco also joined the legal challenge. In a joint statement, the plaintiffs asserted, “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”

Agencies slated for impact by the order included the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency. The case is set to continue in Judge Illston’s court.

阅读中文版 (Read Chinese Version)

Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.