...
By Amanda Castro and Dan Gooding
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
On Monday, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause a federal judge's order blocking mass layoffs and agency restructuring, part of President Donald Trump's plan to downsize the government.
The Justice Department's request follows a May 22 ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco, who sided with unions, nonprofits, and local governments opposing the large-scale federal job cuts.
"The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the President does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in his filing. "The district court's injunction violates these bedrock principles and other well-established doctrines."
Read More on Politics
Newsweek reached out to the American Federation of Government Employees, which brought the original suit, for comment via contact form.
Why It Matters
The case affects multiple departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, where the Trump administration has sought to cut the number of employees, arguing that the federal government is bloated and costs taxpayers too much money.
What To Know
The U.S. District Judge issued a temporary restraining order on May 10 for an initial 14 days, but it was later extended. It barred federal agencies from moving forward with job cuts, which plaintiffs argued could dramatically impact a range of services from veterans affairs to food safety inspections.
Part of the argument against the cuts has been the speed at which the Trump administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initially moved on the plan, with hundreds of workers dismissed with little notice.
In Monday's filing, Sauer stated that the plaintiffs had ignored the official methods established by Congress to handle employment and labor disputes, and that the president does have the power to implement the changes he has sought.
...
The Solicitor General cites Article II, which grants the president the authority to oversee personnel decisions within the executive branch, encompassing numerous federal departments and agencies.
He also stated that the injunction was causing "ongoing and severe harm" by keeping thousands of people employed at taxpayer expense, despite the administration's determination that they are no longer required.
The appeal to the Supreme Court is the latest in a string of cases in which the White House has asked the justices to intervene, ranging from immigration to government spending, arguing that lower courts should not have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.
What People Are Saying
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, in his appeal: "Every day that the preliminary injunction remains in effect, a government-wide program to implement agency RIFs is being halted and delayed, maintaining a bloated and inefficient workforce while wasting countless taxpayer dollars. In these circumstances, an administrative stay is warranted while this Court assesses the government's entitlement to a stay."
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston previously wrote in a 42-page order, as reported by The New York Times: "It is the prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government. But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his co-equal branch and partner, the Congress."
What Happens Next
With little time left in this year's Supreme Court session, it remains unclear whether the court will take up the case.
Update 6/2/25, 1:38 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines