President Trump’s bold push to shrink the federal bureaucracy just got a major boost from the Supreme Court.
Fox News reported that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling greenlights Education Secretary Linda McMahon to slash about 1,400 jobs at the Education Department, a move that’s got progressives clutching their pearls. It’s a clear signal: The court’s ready to let Trump trim the fat from Washington’s sprawling agencies.
The Supreme Court’s decision temporarily allows McMahon to proceed with mass layoffs while advancing Trump’s long-term goal of dismantling the Education Department.
This ruling aligns with a series of decisions showing deference to Trump’s authority over the executive branch. It’s no surprise the left is crying foul, but the court’s stance is clear: The president gets to steer the ship.
It all started when Trump signed an executive order after taking office, launching a “reduction in force” initiative. The Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management followed up in February with a directive ordering agencies to cut non-essential functions. Efficiency, not bureaucracy, is the name of the game here.
The Supreme Court’s rulings on Trump’s job cuts often come on an emergency basis, with little explanation provided. Last week, the court, in an 8-1 decision, overturned a lower court’s injunction by Judge Susan Illston that had blocked Trump’s executive order. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, usually liberal stalwarts, joined the conservative majority, leaving progressives stunned.
“The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies,” wrote Judge Illston, “but he must do so in lawful ways.”
Her plea for congressional oversight fell flat as the Supreme Court prioritized executive power. Looks like the judiciary’s not buying the left’s argument that Trump’s overstepping his bounds.
The court’s decision didn’t just clear the way for Education Department layoffs; it also empowered Secretary of State Marco Rubio to cut over 1,300 State Department jobs. Labor unions and nonprofits cried foul, arguing that such sweeping changes need Congress’s approval. The Supreme Court, however, isn’t here for their hand-wringing.
Since Trump took office, tens of thousands of federal workers have either accepted buyouts or been shown the door. Many other layoffs remain stalled by lawsuits, with district court judges like Melissa DuBose, a Biden appointee, blocking terminations at Health and Human Services. The left’s clinging to judicial roadblocks, but Trump’s team isn’t backing down.
Democratic-led states sued over Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.’s plan to cut about 10,000 employees.
Judge DuBose’s injunction put a temporary halt to those layoffs, but the Supreme Court’s recent rulings suggest her order might not hold. The court’s growing impatience with universal injunctions is a warning shot to activist judges.
“This is another shot across the bow to lower courts,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley on “Fox & Friends.” He’s right—the Supreme Court’s signaling it won’t tolerate endless delays from judges trying to thwart Trump’s agenda. The days of blanket injunctions may be numbered.
The Supreme Court’s rulings are fueling speculation that it might revisit Humphrey’s Executor, a 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential power to fire certain agency officials without cause.
“Not since the 1950s has a President… tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency,” wrote Justice Kagan in a dissent. Her nostalgia for bureaucratic insulation isn’t swaying the majority.
In May, the Supreme Court sided with Trump on firings involving the heads of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. The unsigned order, opposed by the court’s three liberal justices, reaffirmed the president’s broad authority to remove executive officers. It’s a power move that’s got the administrative state shaking.
“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President,” the court’s unsigned order read, “he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.” The clarity of that statement cuts through the left’s complaints like a hot knife. Trump’s reshaping the government, and the court’s got his back.
The Education Department layoffs are just one piece of Trump’s broader vision to streamline federal agencies. The Office of Management and Budget’s memo urged agencies to focus on “the maximum elimination of functions that are not statutorily mandated.” It’s a common-sense approach the left decries as heartless, but taxpayers might appreciate the savings.
“I think they’re basically saying, ‘We don’t think this is trying to restructure the agency,’” said South Texas College law professor Joshua Blackman to Fox News Digital. His take exposes the plaintiffs’ weak case—they’re fighting a losing battle against Trump’s executive authority. The court’s not here to micromanage agency staffing.
