Supreme Court Greenlights Trump Administration's Mass Layoffs at Education Department

On Monday, the Supreme Court enabled the Trump administration to continue with its plans to execute mass layoffs within the Department of Education, a measure that had previously been halted by a federal judge. The conservative-majority court granted an emergency request from the administration without providing any rationale, which led to dissent from the three liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed strong disapproval, stating that the current administration is openly defying the law, and it is the judiciary's responsibility to intervene against such lawlessness, rather than facilitate it.

Sotomayor indicated that the ruling poses a serious threat to the constitutional principle of separation of powers, backtracking on established legal frameworks. The ruling was celebrated by Trump, who claimed it as a major victory for parents and students, suggesting that the decision allows the administration, led by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, to return educational functions to the states. Upon assuming office earlier this year, Trump had initiated an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education, which included plans for mass layoffs that had not received congressional approval.

Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, representing the coalition that brought the lawsuit against these layoffs, criticized the Supreme Court's decision as harmful to public education. She pointed out that the ruling was made without full hearings, demonstrating an unsettling pattern where the court overturns lower court decisions through its shadow docket. The administration's efforts to minimize the size and effectiveness of government agencies have sparked accusations of bypassing congressional authority.

According to U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in May, evidence indicated that the administration's real intention was to dismantle the Department of Education without any legislative backing. The administration's legal representation, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that the judge's ruling infringed on the president's powers regarding federal agency management. He claimed that the proposed layoffs, affecting 1,378 employees, were misinterpreted and not aimed at fully eliminating the department.

New York Attorney General Letitia James countered that the layoffs were unlawful, describing the administration's actions as arbitrary and lacking in procedural justification. She asserted that they failed to consider necessary functions within the department, violating legal restrictions on the Secretary's authority to modify or abolish statutory roles within the agency.