Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe 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 could 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, or DOGE.
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.
The high court action continued a remarkable winning streak for Trump, who the justices have allowed to move forward with significant parts of his plan to remake the federal government. The Supreme Court’s intervention so far has been on the frequent emergency appeals the Justice Department has filed objecting to lower-court rulings as improperly intruding on presidential authority.
The Republican president has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate for the work, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Musk recently left his role.
“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration. It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement.
Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go.
In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump’s administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Illston’s order, finding that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation’s food-safety system and health care for veterans.
Illston directed numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president’s workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The labor unions and nonprofit groups that sued over the downsizing offered the justices several examples of what would happen if it were allowed to take effect, including cuts of 40% to 50% at several agencies. Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco were among cities that also sued.
“Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the parties that sued said in a joint statement.
Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.
The case now continues in Illston’s court.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
I guess Justice Brown-Jackson doesn’t realize her job is to determine Constitutionality, not to make policy decisions.
She took the position it was not legal, which is her job, even when others disagree with her position. Her additional comments are of the same sort that *all* the justices have said about what consequences they foresee from a decision they disagree with. In fact, some of the more conservative justices frequently editorialize and make policy comments in their opinions.
There is a reason suburban Washing, D.C. makes up 5 of the 7 wealthiest counties in the U.S. The other 2 are on the exclusive central coast of California. Much of that D.C. wealth is the result of federal employees and contractors paid to service or administer the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Granted, some of it is necessary, but like any self-interested bureaucracy, it will never rationalize its own size or growth. That rationalization needs to happen, now, before it consumes the productive economy that makes it all possible.
Much of the wealth is from wealthy individuals who want to locate near the seat of power, and the lobbyists, lawyers that follow.
If you go to DC, you can see many grand Gilded Age mansions, especially in the DuPont Circle neighborhood. These were built long, long before DC had anything of the sort of bureaucracy it has now.
Also, about 80% of all federal employees work *outside* of the DC metro area.
DC and its suburbs will remain an area of highly concentrated wealth, even with the downsizing of federal employees. I mean who needs air traffic controllers or food inspectors, right?
Yeah, federal workers are paid millions of dollars. What world do you live in?!
Christopher, You make my point. Lobbyists and power brokers need to be near D.C. because the federal government is so large and controls so much of the nation’s economy through regulations and federal programs — they need to be there to buy influence and shape policy. And federal employees are paid very well, earn large pensions, and then many go back to work as consultants and contractors for the agencies they just left.
And no one is claiming we don’t need air traffic controllers or food inspectors. That’s the old trick we always hear every time an attempt is made to make the federal bureaucracy the slightest bit accountable.
The Court did not approve Trump’s plans to downsize. It merely prevented a single federal district judge in one district in California from blocking the Administration’s efforts to make a plan to downsize, which is why eight of the Court’s nine justices supported the decision. And if you’re on the side of never allowing the federal government to even consider a downsizing plan, as only Ketanji Brown-Jackson is, perhaps you could use a refresher course on employment law and how the government works. A course in economics and the cost of debt might be useful as well.
Ah, so now Republicans care about the debt again now that their Big Bloated Bill is signed. Who could have predicted that.
Cowards
Michael N — and you would have put through the largest single tax increase in history to feed the monster, with the added benefit of causing a recession? It’s very clear where the Democrats stand — with the federal bureaucracy and ever more government — never the taxpayers.
Or they could make selective changes so taxes increase only to those that aren’t paying a fair share – like Musk and others. It’s ok to make changes; the House and Senate seem to forget this is their job!
Millions of individuals will lose their healthcare. Millions more will lose access to food they need to live. But, f-them, right?
The only important thing is that the multi-billionaire oligarchs are made even richer. After all, Musk has to pay child support for his 14 kids, and Bezos has to pay off his multi-millionaire dollar spectacle of a Venetian wedding–and send another pop star into space.
Make it 1927 again.
Christopher — you’re delusional. The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of federal income tax revenues. The top 5% pay 60%. The top 10% pay 70%. Go ahead and raise tax rates further on that 1% and see what happens. Much of their income will flee to tax havens and the federal treasury will end up less. Plus, most of those billionaires are Democrats, like Bezos and his Washington Post, because they use big government, in D.C., to acquire more wealth and power.