Supreme Court clears the way for Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2025, 07:45 PM - Edit history (3)

Source: AP

Updated 4:39 PM EDT, July 8, 2025


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs.

The justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency.

The court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a "demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture."

Jackson warned of enormous real-world consequences. "This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it," she wrote.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-mass-firings-151e14da3186d34eab1923c45831c1b6

---

Just breaking. Short article at post time.

This is shadow document stuff and bizarre technicality.

Link to RULING (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1174_h3ci.pdf

REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143470488


Article updated.

Previous article -

Updated 3:54 PM EDT, July 8, 2025


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs.

The justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency.

The court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a "demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture."

Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Musk recently left his role.

Original article -

Updated 3:50 PM EDT, July 8, 2025


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs.

The justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency.

The court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a "demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture."

[FadedMullet]

1. If Sotomayor and Kagan signed on to the opinion, one has to wonder about it's import.

[LauraInLA]

2. My question, as well.

[pat_k]

14. FWIW, my understanding in a post downthread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143493094#post12

[LauraInLA]

15. Thank you!

[C_U_L8R]

8. Handing him the rope to hang himself?

Curious.

[pat_k]

13. FWIW, my understanding in a post downthread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143493094#post12

[FBaggins]

20. No... it's a significant loss similar to restricting national injunctions

The district court and 9th circuit agreed on blocking an executive order (and the attending OMB/OPM memos) because they thought they were illegal. SCOTUS now says overwhelmingly that they were not. There’s no sugar-coating that.

Yes - individual RIF’s can be challenged if they exceed executive authority, but it’s clear that this authority extends well beyond what plaintiffs were hoping for

[chouchou]

3. I'm hopeful that some kindly, considerate coorporations will take over those ...

Federal jobs and charge their services 167 percent more. ...on the backs of taxpayers.

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

5. Trump wouldn't care.

Part of that overcharge would go to wetting his beak.

The most corrupt regime (not administration) in the history of our nation.

[lostincalifornia]

4. The issue they ruled on to me seems too general and ambiguous, however, rather general, I suspect more

specific job removals will probably be argued before this court, and will probably have the same ruling, or the typical 6-3 ruling.

Regardless, all of this is predictable.

Is anyone really surprised?

What did people think would happen if trump got a second term?

He told you exactly what he would do, and VP Harris told you also. It is all outlined in Project 2025.

[twodogsbarking]

6. The rape of a nation by an experienced rapist.

Who would have thought.

[Silent Type]

7. WaPo article says the two liberal Justices sided with the 6 pack because--

"But in this case, two of the liberal justices — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — appeared to have joined the conservatives in allowing the administration to plan reorganizations and reductions in the workforce. Sotomayor said it was because the administration had directed agencies to operate “consistent with applicable law.”

"“The 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,” wrote Sotomayor, adding that the lower-court judge is still free to assess the legality of the administration’s plans.

"In their brief unsigned order, the majority said, “we express no view on the legality of any” agency plans for restructuring or shrinking of the workforce and left open the possibility that the issue could return to the Supreme Court."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/08/supreme-court-trump-mass-layoffs-federal-workers/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Yeah that's why I mentioned the "technicality"

The court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions.

I expect the lower courts could put a stay right back again when rehearing.

[angrychair]

10. SCOTUS is worthless

The law is now whatever the Mango Mussolini wants it to be.

No matter how cruel, violent or destructive, everything is "good to go" as far as SCOTUS is concerned.

[LymphocyteLover]

11. Sickening

[pat_k]

12. My understanding is that it is actually a bit of a mixed decision.

If I understand Nina Totenberg's analysis correctly, they lifted the lower court's order blocking the firings because the order was not related to pausing a specific "reduction in force" plan pending adjudication of the legality of the plan. They apparently affirmed that the legality of a specific "plan" could be challenged, but that there was no specific plan before the court, so they lifted the order.

It seems to me that the judge can infer the "plan" by the number of people who received termination notices. She could then reinstate the block because the plaintiffs are likely to prove the number of firings render the agency incapable of fulfilling it's congressional mandate, and are therefore likely to prevail. The 47 regime is then challenged to defend their "plan" and submit specifics for review. They would have to make the case that an agency with almost 0 people left can somehow fulfill the congressional mandate.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way out in left field.

Here's the analysis I heard (I may be reading more into it than is there):
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5356191/scotus-on-probationary-employees

[FadedMullet]

18. Thank you. I think that you're right in your analysis of this and much closer to shortstop than left field.

[DENVERPOPS]

16. Maybe it is this..............

The Supremes know that there is no Judicial Branch in a tyrannical dictatorship.........Sooooo if they get in Trump's good graces, maybe they can make the case to Trump that along with the 2025 group, they need to throw out the old constitution and take YEARS to write and re-write their
"NEW" Constitution.........Job Security!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My bets are off on anything this Administration will do, or not do.........almost without exception they have overturned the rule of law, the constitution, the Federal Government, etc etc etc.......

[slightlv]

17. Damn, there's that word "mandate" again...

I don't think it means what trump wants it to mean.

[Igel]

19. It hasn't for decades.

No margin of victory is too thin to undermine the claim of a mandate.