The ruling now affirms the Second Circuit’s ruling against President Donald Trump’s directive. Today’s ruling gives the administration greenlight to continue making drastic staff cuts at 19 federal agencies even as the court case is considered. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only justice to vote in dissent against the majority ruling, arguing that the majority failed to consider the ripple effects of the decision.
The court’s ruling reversed an earlier injunction imposed by a federal district court judge in California last May. That injunction had paused the proposed personnel cuts. The Supreme Court will have an opportunity to reconsider the question as soon as next year. In the interim though, the Trump administration will be free to continue with their reorganization efforts.
In February, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to start the process of implementing deep staff cuts. Photo of D. John Sauer, former Special Solicitor General of Missouri, who is representing the Trump administration in this case. He claims that the executive order is deeply rooted in legal precedent and expresses a time-honored tradition of executive authority.
“The order rested on firm legal footing and followed a long historical tradition.” – D. John Sauer
Sauer said that Congress has allowed for the Executive Branch’s ability to reshape its workforce as needed for more than 150 years. He noted that these changes continue to honor statutory preferences for veterans as well as other important factors.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson detailed her concerns over the timing and impact of the court’s ruling. She highlighted the need to better understand the actual impacts to the real world from these changes to the workforce.
“In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground.” – Ketanji Brown Jackson
Jackson challenged whether the court would be in a position to fairly judge if those actions amounted to a meaningful reform. He feared that these amendments could violate Congress’s legislative prerogatives retroactively after they were already adopted.
“This case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened.” – Ketanji Brown Jackson
In light of these positive changes, President Trump decided to double-down and courageously restate his administration’s focus. He reiterated that they will continue on with the legally mandated RIFs.
“Promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reduction in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law.” – Donald Trump
This is still a rapidly developing story. All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it prepares to address this hotly debated issue sometime next year. The impact of these future workforce reductions may dramatically reconfigure these federal agencies and how they operate over the next several months.