The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a significant procedural victory to the Trump administration, lifting a lower court injunction that had blocked the federal government from proceeding with mass layoffs—known as “reductions in force” (RIFs)—across dozens of federal agencies.
The unsigned order from the Court allows federal agencies to resume implementing Trump’s February executive order, which directs a sweeping overhaul of the federal workforce. While the justices did not rule on the legality of any specific agency layoff or reorganization plan, they found the executive order itself is “likely lawful,” at least for now.
“We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum,” the Court cautioned.
The ruling lifts a May 22 injunction issued by Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in the Northern District of California, who found that the administration likely exceeded its authority by initiating large-scale layoffs without explicit congressional authorization. Illston’s order had frozen reorganization efforts across more than a dozen departments, including Agriculture, State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson denounced the majority’s move as “hubristic and senseless,” warning that the Court was interfering with ongoing litigation from a “lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence.” She argued that the Court acted prematurely, knowing too little about the practical impact of the executive order.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while expressing sympathy with Jackson’s concerns, ultimately sided with the majority. In her concurring opinion, she emphasized that the specific agency plans had not yet reached the Court and could still be challenged in lower courts:
“I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance.”
The Justice Department welcomed the decision. In filings, Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that the lower court’s injunction had paralyzed efforts to streamline federal operations, writing:
“Agencies are being prevented… from taking needed steps to make the federal government and workforce more efficient. Absent intervention from this Court, that intolerable state of affairs promises to endure for months.”
Opponents of the layoffs—a coalition of labor unions, local governments, and progressive legal organizations—argued that Trump’s directive constitutes a “breakneck reorganization” of government that violates constitutional checks and balances. They warned that if courts later find the president overstepped his authority, the damage will already be done.
“There will be no way to unscramble that egg,” the plaintiffs argued in filings. “As a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services.”
Legal representation for the plaintiffs includes Altshuler Berzon LLP and national advocacy groups such as Democracy Forward, Protect Democracy, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Public Rights Project.
In a statement following the ruling, the coalition expressed deep disappointment:
“Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy… Reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”
This is the second time in 2025 that the Supreme Court has stepped in to let the Trump administration proceed with mass terminations. In April, the Court allowed the firing of thousands of probationary federal employees, again over the objections of Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
