The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the path for President Donald Trump’s plan to reduce the federal workforce, overriding lower court rulings that had blocked the controversial job cuts. Despite growing alarm over the potential collapse of essential public services, the high court allowed the administration to proceed with downsizing efforts spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The unsigned opinion did not address any specific personnel terminations, but instead focused on the legitimacy of Trump’s executive order and administrative directive instructing agencies to cut jobs.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reportedly issued the lone dissent, sharply criticizing the court’s decision to intervene without full consideration. She accused her colleagues of showing a “demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”
RELATED STORIES
READ ALSO: Trump administration renews Supreme Court bid to revive federal workforce overhaul
“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,” Jackson warned in her written opinion.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
Tuesday’s decision marks yet another legal victory for Trump, who has increasingly relied on emergency appeals to push forward his restructuring agenda. The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly backed the president’s assertions of broad executive authority over federal agencies.
Trump, who tapped billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk to lead DOGE before Musk’s recent departure, has framed the workforce cuts as part of a voter-endorsed mandate to overhaul the federal government.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields welcomed the court’s ruling, calling it “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,” Fields added.
The reductions have already affected tens of thousands of federal employees, some fired outright, others exiting through deferred resignation programs or placed on indefinite leave. Though no official tally has been released, over 75,000 workers are estimated to have taken voluntary exits, while many others, particularly probationary hires, have been dismissed.
In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that such dramatic cuts required approval from Congress. She ordered a temporary freeze on the president’s executive order and a related DOGE memo issued in February. Her ruling, supported by a 2-1 decision from a 9th Circuit Court panel, highlighted concerns about the impact on vital public services, including food safety and veterans’ healthcare.
The lawsuit, filed by labor unions, advocacy groups, and several major cities including Baltimore, Chicago, and San Francisco, warned that as many as half of the jobs in certain federal agencies could be eliminated if the order moved forward.
“Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. “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.”
Agencies potentially affected by the cuts include the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Energy, the Interior, State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the EPA, Social Security Administration, National Science Foundation, and Small Business Association.
As the case returns to Judge Illston’s court for further proceedings, the ruling has sparked renewed debate over executive authority, separation of powers, and the long-term implications for public sector governance in the U.S.
