The United States Supreme Court has authorised the Trump administration to move forward with extensive staff cuts at the Department for Education, permitting the dismissal of nearly 1,400 employees. This decision revives a contentious campaign to reduce the federal department’s role, fulfilling one of President Trump’s key campaign promises.
Previously, a U.S. District Judge in Boston, Myong Joun, had issued an injunction to halt these layoffs, warning that such widespread reductions could severely hamper the department’s ability to function effectively.
Judge Joun described the proposed dismissals as likely to “cripple the department.” Although the administration appealed this ruling, the federal appeals court refused to stay the judge’s injunction pending further review.
However, the Supreme Court stepped in and suspended the lower court’s order, enabling the administration to continue with the phaseout of department staff, despite ongoing legal challenges. As is typical for emergency rulings, the Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for its decision. The ruling did, however, provoke a vehement dissent from the court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan.
Justice Sotomayor, speaking for the dissenters, criticised the majority for permitting what she characterised as potentially unlawful executive action.
“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 stated.
The Department for Education personnel targeted by the layoffs had been placed on paid leave since March. Under Judge Joun’s injunction, the department was barred from fully terminating their employment, although staff were not permitted to return to work. The American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, representing many of the affected workers, reported that without the injunction, these employees would have been dismissed as early as June.
Meanwhile, the department indicated that it was “actively assessing how to reintegrate” the staff and sought information from them regarding any other employment they may have secured, apparently to facilitate a “smooth and informed return to duty.”
The current legal disputes stem from two consolidated lawsuits asserting that the Trump administration’s plan constitutes an unlawful attempt to effectively dismantle the Department for Education. One lawsuit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts alongside the American Federation of Teachers and other education advocacy groups. The other action comes from a coalition of 21 Democratic state attorneys general.
Plaintiffs argue that the drastic reductions would leave the department unable to fulfil critical congressionally mandated responsibilities. These include supporting special education initiatives, administering federal financial aid programmes, and enforcing civil rights laws designed to ensure equitable education opportunities nationwide.
The decision has sparked considerable concern among educators, policy experts, and civil rights advocates, who warn that diminishing federal oversight and resources threatens to undermine support for vulnerable student populations. They stress the importance of the department’s role in addressing disparities and guaranteeing access to quality education across different states.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling lifts the immediate legal barrier to staff reductions, it does not resolve the overarching dispute. The ongoing lawsuits challenging the administration’s authority to reduce or effectively close the department will proceed in lower courts, possibly influencing future interpretations of executive power and the scope of federal agencies.