Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Silent Type

(10,599 posts)
7. WaPo article says the two liberal Justices sided with the 6 pack because--
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 04:46 PM
Jul 8

"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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If Sotomayor and Kagan signed on to the opinion, one has to wonder about it's import. FadedMullet Jul 8 #1
My question, as well. LauraInLA Jul 8 #2
FWIW, my understanding in a post downthread. pat_k Jul 8 #14
Thank you! LauraInLA Jul 8 #15
Handing him the rope to hang himself? C_U_L8R Jul 8 #8
FWIW, my understanding in a post downthread. pat_k Jul 8 #13
No... it's a significant loss similar to restricting national injunctions FBaggins Jul 10 #20
I'm hopeful that some kindly, considerate coorporations will take over those ... chouchou Jul 8 #3
Trump wouldn't care. Prof. Toru Tanaka Jul 8 #5
The issue they ruled on to me seems too general and ambiguous, however, rather general, I suspect more lostincalifornia Jul 8 #4
The rape of a nation by an experienced rapist. twodogsbarking Jul 8 #6
WaPo article says the two liberal Justices sided with the 6 pack because-- Silent Type Jul 8 #7
Yeah that's why I mentioned the "technicality" BumRushDaShow Jul 8 #9
SCOTUS is worthless angrychair Jul 8 #10
Sickening LymphocyteLover Jul 8 #11
My understanding is that it is actually a bit of a mixed decision. pat_k Jul 8 #12
Thank you. I think that you're right in your analysis of this and much closer to shortstop than left field. FadedMullet Jul 9 #18
Maybe it is this.............. DENVERPOPS Jul 8 #16
Damn, there's that word "mandate" again... slightlv Jul 8 #17
It hasn't for decades. Igel Jul 9 #19
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court clears the ...»Reply #7