Supreme Court Clears Path for Trump’s Mass Layoffs

By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court authorized Donald Trump’s administration to proceed with significant reductions in government jobs, leading to potential layoffs in numerous federal agencies.

At Trump’s directive, plans have been created to decrease personnel within the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, among others.

The court released an unsigned order indicating that the administration is likely to prevail in asserting the legality of Trump’s executive actions related to agency layoff plans.

This decision represents another win for Trump’s initiative to enhance executive power. The Supreme Court has supported Trump on several emergency motions since his return to office in January, including backing some of his strict immigration enforcement measures.

The Supreme Court, however, did not evaluate the legality of any individual agency layoff plans, noting that further legal challenges remain a possibility.

Unions, nonprofits, and local governments that opposed the mass layoffs stated the ruling seriously undermines democracy and jeopardizes vital public services. The plaintiffs vowed to persist in advocating for the communities they represent.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll from April indicated that Americans are slightly in favor of Trump’s downsizing initiative, with 56% supporting and 40% opposing the effort, primarily reflecting partisan divisions.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reversed a prior decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, which had temporarily halted large federal layoffs as the case was in progress.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields lauded the court’s ruling as a decisive victory for the president, asserting it affirmed Trump’s authority to pursue greater efficiency across the federal government.

Trump’s extensive agenda to reduce the 2.3-million strong federal workforce began in January, led by billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency.

Musk and his team swiftly took control of crucial government agencies, initiating firings and restricting operations at the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Trump and Musk argue that the federal bureaucracy is excessively bloated and should be streamlined. Conversely, federal worker unions and a majority of Democrats claim that the layoffs have been chaotic, threatening essential public services like Social Security claims processing. By late April, approximately 260,000 civil servants had been dismissed or had resigned early due to these reform efforts.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in public from the court’s decision, criticizing the court’s support for what she termed the president’s legally questionable actions taken during emergencies.

Illston had previously asserted that Trump surpassed his authority regarding the downsizing, emphasizing that substantial restructuring of federal agencies necessitates congressional approval.

She had ordered a temporary halt to mass layoffs and restricted the agencies from severing federal programs while also mandating the reinstatement of terminated employees, with implementation of her ruling pending the appeals process.