WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education, overturning a federal judge’s order that had blocked the plan.
The conservative-majority court granted an emergency application from the administration without explanation, according to court documents. The ruling blocks U.S. District Judge Myong Joun’s May 22 decision that had halted the layoffs.
The court’s three liberal justices objected to the decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion criticizing the majority.
“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.
She said the majority was “either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive” and that the decision “rewards clear defiance” of the Constitution.
The case is separate from another Supreme Court decision last week that allowed Trump administration layoffs across multiple government agencies.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order upon taking office directing his administration to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon then ordered the layoffs, telling employees in a memo that her goal was to “shut down the Department.” Congress has not approved eliminating the department.
The layoffs affect 1,378 employees, according to Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued the federal judge’s ruling interfered with presidential authority to operate federal agencies.
Sauer said the administration has been “crystal clear” that the layoffs are not part of an effort to eliminate the department altogether, acknowledging that only Congress can do that.
Judge Joun had ruled that evidence showed the administration’s “true intention is to effectively dismantle the department without an authorizing statute.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, representing some of the challengers, said the layoffs were “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and unconstitutional.”
The challengers, including states, school districts and employee unions, argued the layoffs eliminated teams performing legally mandated tasks without providing alternatives.
James said the policy “violates affirmative statutory restrictions on the Secretary’s authority to reallocate, consolidate, alter, or abolish statutory functions within the Department.”
