Supreme Court lets Trump's ‘wrecking ball' federal job cuts proceed while legal fight continues
In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court.
The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to "streamline government and eliminate waste." Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal government.FEDERAL APPEALS COURT THROWS ROADBLOCK AT TRUMP'S EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA
A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself."Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application," the Court wrote. "We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court."
The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court's unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is "likely to succeed" in defending the legality of the order.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that "this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation." She warned that the executive action represents a "structural overhaul that usurps Congress's policymaking prerogatives" and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts.
"This unilateral decision to 'transform' the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court," she wrote. "The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture."
The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed "non-critical" or "not statutorily mandated." The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain "thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service... is not in the government and public interest."
Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
The court's ruling is not a final judgment on the legality of the executive order. It only determines that implementation may proceed temporarily while appeals continue. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the injunction or the Supreme Court declines to take up the case later, the order could again be paused.The American Federal Government Employees Union had a forceful response: "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. While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees."Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration," wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. "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."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Epstein victims accuse Trump administration of trying to protect wealthy, powerful enablers
NEW YORK — Women who allege Jeffrey Epstein abused them have accused the Trump administration, in new court filings, of trying to protect enablers of the well-connected wealth manager and criticized the government for treating victims as pawns 'in political warfare.' In letters filed late Monday with Manhattan Federal Judge Richard Berman — one of the judges who are mulling requests by the government to unseal transcripts from the grand jury proceedings against Epstein and his convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell — two women took aim at the Trump administration for its handling of the snowballing scandal. They referenced the memo released last month by the Justice Department and the FBI, in which the government declined to shed light on a trove of records gathered in Epstein investigations and concluded a major review found there was no 'client list' and that Epstein killed himself, contrary to conspiracy theories previously peddled by Trump's appointees. 'I feel like the DOJ's and FBI's priority is protecting the 'third-party,' the wealthy men, by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims, 'know who they are'. To learn that our own president has utilized thousands of agents to protect his identity and these high-profile individuals is monumentally mind-blowing,' an anonymous victim wrote in one of the letters. The letter to Berman later added, 'I think what I would request from you, Your Honor, is to consider having an approved third party review these documents to ensure that NO victims' names or likenesses are revealed through this release. It is imperative with the scrutiny over this media frenzy that the victims are completely and entirely protected.' In another letter, a second victim addressed the government: 'What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely. Why not be completely transparent? Show us all the files with only the necessary redactions! Be done with it and allow me/us to heal. You protect yourself and your powerful and wealthy 'friends' (not enemies) over the victims, why? The victims know the truth, we know who are in the files and now so do you.' The second letter urged Berman to let victims' attorneys review what the Justice Department wants to redact from the grand jury transcripts the DOJ is trying to unseal and slammed the government for recently meeting with Maxwell behind bars to get more information. 'I regrettably feel the need to come forward and shed some light on the government's motion to unseal transcripts, documents and exhibits from the 'case' that was never tried. Sad to say, for the victims we never got our day in court. Apparently, Epstein killed himself under whose watch? Oh, was it Trump's DOJ? Hmmm, interesting,' the second letter read. 'I ask you to have our attorneys review the 'suggested' redactions as they are the ones who also know the victims, their names, their truths and their stories unlike the Unites States Government who did not and does not even care to know our truth. They would rather ask a convicted imprisoned sex trafficker/abuser for information.' The Epstein files scandal has only continued to grow as the Trump administration has sought to contain it. Following the memo by the Justice Department and FBI, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's name was included in the government's nonpublic Epstein files and that he'd been informed of such, and that Trump wrote a cryptic message to Epstein on the financier's 50th birthday. Trump has denied writing the birthday missive and is suing The Wall Street Journal. The transcripts from the grand jury proceedings against Maxwell that Trump's appointees are trying to get unsealed contain little information that is not publicly known, the government said in court filings Tuesday. The public record does not include substantive exhibits shown to the grand jurors who indicted Maxwell. Still, the Justice Department is not, for now, trying to make them public, according to the new Manhattan Federal Court filings. Trump's appointees discussed the materials in response to requests for more information from Berman and Judge Paul Engelmayer, who will rule on the motions to unseal grand jury transcripts. They included sealed annotated transcripts from Maxwell's grand jury proceedings, specifically outlining what's not publicly available. In an accompanying letter, the Justice Department conceded 'much of the information' within was revealed at the British former socialite's trial in late 2021 or had otherwise been reported in accounts shared by victims and witnesses publicly. The government filing asked the judges to give the Justice Department until Friday to take a position on whether grand jury exhibits should be unsealed. In an order later Tuesday, Engelmayer granted the request. Engelmayer on Tuesday also ordered the Justice Department to respond to letters submitted from the victims about the disclosure requests. The Epstein grand jury met on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019, according to Tuesday's filings. The disgraced financier was arrested on July 6 that year on sweeping sex trafficking charges alleging he had for years abused dozens of teen girls and young women, more than a decade after he evaded justice in a maligned sweetheart deal with federal prosecutors in Florida. He was found dead a month after his arrest on Aug. 10, 2019, in his jail cell at the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, with his death ultimately ruled as a suicide. The Maxwell grand jury met on June 29, 2020, July 8, 2020, and March 29, 2021, the Justice Department said in the new filings. She was indicted on July 2, 2020, and found guilty of sex trafficking counts, including one involving a minor, in December 2021. Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison following her conviction, a term she had been serving at FCI Tallahassee, Fla., until her surprise transfer last week to a much cushier setup in a dormitory-style prison for women in Bryan, Texas, after meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, who framed the meetup as a truth-seeking mission. Tuesday's filings by the Justice Department said the government had failed to make contact with one victim of Epstein whose name featured in grand jury proceedings about the disclosure requests and would try to contact other victims who weren't identified in transcripts in the coming days. _____
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Election results 2025: Macomb County primary races, ballot proposals
Election results 2025: Macomb County primary races, ballot proposals Results for races and ballot proposals in Macomb County for the Aug. 5, 2025 primary election. New Baltimore Mayor 2-year term. 1 position. Sterling Heights Council 4-year term. 6 positions. Proposals Read the full text for proposals on the Macomb County clerk's website. Clinton Township Police Department Millage Renewal Proposition Ray Township Fire and Rescue Operations Millage Renewal Ray Township Fire and Rescue Department Equipment and Truck Replacement Millage Renewal Armada Area Schools Bond Proposal (Includes results from St. Clair County) Fitzgerald Public Schools School Building And Site Bond Proposal Fitzgerald Public Schools Replacement Building And Site Sinking Fund Tax Proposal This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan election results 2025: Macomb County primaries, proposals Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Michigan Gov. Whitmer makes another White House visit to meet with Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer met with President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday to discuss the toll tariffs are taking on the auto industry and the potential effects of his tax and spending bill on Medicaid. It's the latest in a string of meetings between the Democratic governor and the Republican president after the two frequently clashed during his first term. In his second term, Whitmer has adopted a more diplomatic approach, drawing some backlash from fellow Democrats. But it's also resulted in multiple wins for Whitmer's state, including Trump's approving $50 million in storm relief and awarding a new fighter jet mission for an Air National Guard base in the state. 'I've always said that I'll work with anyone to get things done for Michigan,' Whitmer, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, said in a statement Tuesday. 'That's why I've continued to go to Washington, D.C., to make sure that Michiganders are front and center when critical decisions are being made.' The private meeting between Whitmer and Trump — which a White House official would not confirm but did stress Trump's continued focus on Michigan — marks a rare instance of the president sitting with a leading Democratic figure. In recent weeks, Trump attacked Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, telling him to 'go to hell," while also taking aim at other high-profile Democratic governors who have pushed back on some of his policies, including California's Gavin Newsom and Illinois' JB Pritzker, also considered possible 2028 candidates. Pritzker has aided Texas Democrats in leaving their state to stay in Illinois to block Republicans from their needed quorum to pass a new congressional map backed by Trump. Early Tuesday, Trump called Pritzker 'probably the dumbest of all governors' in a television interview. Whitmer has been more careful, criticizing some of Trump's policies rather than the president himself. She issued an executive directive last week to assess the impact of tariffs that she said have led to 'massive economic uncertainty' — without mentioning Trump's name once. Tuesday's appearance ended with far less controversy than her trip to the White House in April. Whitmer was unexpectedly ushered into the Oval Office during that visit, standing awkwardly nearby as the Republican president signed executive orders and assailed his political opponents during a photo opportunity. In their White House meeting Tuesday, Whitmer said that she told Trump and 'his team about the impact tariffs are having on Michigan's economy, especially our auto industry.' She also discussed 'changes in the Medicaid program, and ongoing recovery efforts following the ice storm in Northern Michigan this year." Whitmer also saw Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chief of staff Susie Wiles while at the White House. Trump announced last month that he had spoken with Whitmer to inform her that he was appproving $50 million in federal funds for Michigan to support repairs and recovery from a March ice storm. In April, Trump traveled to Michigan to announce a new mission for Selfridge Air National Guard Base, which Whitmer has sought for years.
