U.S. Supreme Court Approves Mass Firings at Federal Agencies, Including HHS

The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce and restructure several federal agencies, including the departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, State and Treasury. This decision, issued as an unsigned emergency order, lifted a previous lower court block and could result in tens of thousands of job losses.

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling is technically temporary, it effectively enables the administration to act while legal challenges are still ongoing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented strongly, warning that the decision undermines lower courts and could lead to the dismantling of much of the federal government as established by Congress.

The administration plans to begin further layoffs and reorganizations immediately.

The legal battle began after President Trump issued an executive order in February directing agencies to prepare for large-scale staff cuts and structural changes. In response, labor unions, advocacy organizations and local governments filed lawsuits challenging the order’s legality. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston temporarily blocked the layoffs, in early May, and later extended the halt, arguing that such sweeping changes required congressional approval. She emphasized that while presidents can pursue new policy directions, significant reorganizations of federal agencies must involve Congress.

Despite the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Illston’s ruling, the Trump administration sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the president should not need explicit statutory approval for internal executive branch personnel decisions. The challengers, however, maintained that Trump’s actions violated the separation of powers and broke with over a century of precedent where presidents sought congressional authorization for major government reorganizations.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that she agreed with the Court’s decision, but added that “the [reorganization] plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance.” This implies that there will be further litigation on this matter.