Mass job cuts, layoffs soon in U.S? Check who will be fired?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FAQs
U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by the administration. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies.Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote.The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out.Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal workforce.Formerly spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump.The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's ruling.The 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit."The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations."The 9th Circuit's ruling prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's order.Controlling the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in its filing to the Supreme Court."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," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority.The plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to deny the Justice Department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," they wrote, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs."The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January.It cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with his Department of Government Efficiency.A1. The full form of DOGE is Department of Government Efficiency.A2. President of USA is Donald Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC questions right of Jain organisations to seek closure of slaughterhouse for entire Paryushan Parv
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday questioned the right of organisations representing the Jain community to seek closure of slaughterhouses for the entire period of nearly 10 days of Paryushan, a prominent Jain festival. The court said there was no legislative mandate in law for such an order. The HC also issued notice to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the state government, seeking their response to pleas seeking closure of slaughterhouses for the entire festival. The court also said that it cannot stay the present BMC decision. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Sheth Bherulalji Kanaiyalalji Kothari Religious Trust and Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities and two other organisations. The petitioners had relied on the Supreme Court judgement of March 2008 in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat pertaining to Ahmedabad (Gujarat) that upheld the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to close down slaughterhouses during Jain festival. Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the BMC, in its August 14 decision, did not consider that the Mumbai city has more Jain population than Ahmedabad. He submitted that BMC's order was exactly a 'copy-paste' version of last year's decision and it 'exhibits lack of application of mind and has been passed by taking into account the material which is not relevant for the purposes of the decision'. The petitioners also referred to Article 51A (g) of the Constitution related to fundamental duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures and argued the civic bodies should considered the same. The HC remarked that it could not direct the authority to close slaughterhouses for the entire Paryushan Parv as there was 'no legislative mandate' in law. The judges orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) are seeking a mandamus of 10-day closure. For that there has to be a mandate in law. You must have a right which could be enforced by court of law. Where does the law say that slaughter houses must be closed for 10 days? No stay can be granted (on BMC decision) because you are seeking writ of mandamus. Except for pointing out an error in BMC order , you have not made out a case for issuing mandamus.' The HC emphasised that the SC verdict was on a decision made by Ahmedabad civic body and not one imposed by judicial order of the court. The bench orally remarked, 'You (petitioners) will appreciate the difficulty (of the HC). In SC judgement, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had taken a decision (of closure), which was upheld by the court. But in this case, there is no legislative mandate, no rule, no law that they must close (for all 10 days). Where is that obligation? You understand the distinction.' Senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar for another petitioner argued that the BMC had taken a decision despite there being a large number of vegetarian population in the city. He remarked it was easier 'to appeal and convince Mughal emperor Akbar' to prohibit slaughter in Gujarat (in his times as mentioned in SC verdict) but it was difficult to convince the BMC and state government. The HC allowed petitioners to amend the pleas to challenge BMC's August 14 order and posted the hearing after two weeks.
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
RMG firms quietly assess Bill banning their industry; video game firms welcome move
Real money gaming (RMG) firms struck a cautious tone in responding to the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, which was passed by the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (August 20, 2025). The Bill prohibits any sort of online game that accepts money from users in exchange for a chance to win a return on the money, or risk losing what they put in. The E-Gaming Federation (EGF), which represents Games24x7 and RummyCircle, two RMG platforms, said that the Bill was a 'distinct opportunity to establish a framework that safeguards players while promoting responsible growth in a sunrise sector.' It added, 'Thoughtful regulation can amplify the positive impact while ensuring responsible and fair practices remain at the core.' The Bill would force these firms to stop offering pay-to-play games. Commissions on these games are a principal revenue stream for RMG firms. 'Death knell' In a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah, the firms underlined their anxieties more explicitly. 'Such a blanket prohibition would strike a death knell for this legitimate, job-creating industry, and would cause serious harm to Indian users and citizens,' the EGF said, along with the All India Gaming Federation and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports. 'Fly-by-night' offshore firms would proliferate, investor sentiment would be dampened, and two lakh people would lose their jobs, the letter argued. Video gaming is distinct category Video game companies, which have complained in the past about their industries being conflated with the RMG industry under the umbrella 'gaming' label, welcomed the Bill. 'For the last two years, the singular demand of the Indian video games industry has been recognition and categorisation as a distinct industry-business, not clubbed with online money games,' Harish Chengaiah, CEO of Chennai-based Outlier Games said. 'With the proposed Bill, that demand has finally been met, and we thank the Government of India for it.' The Bill may find takers across the political spectrum, but few voices of support emerged from the Opposition, amid the standoff on the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar and allegations of 'vote theft' by the INDIA coalition. However, Karnataka IT Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress MP Karti Chidambaram have both expressed concerns that an outright prohibition may not fix the problem and instead promote offshore gambling operators' attempts to make inroads among Indian users.
Mint
21 minutes ago
- Mint
NCLT seeks Vedanta reply after petroleum ministry flags co's demerger plan
Mumbai: The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Wednesday asked Vedanta Ltd to respond within four weeks after the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas objected to its upcoming demerger, potentially delaying the process and injecting uncertainties into the company's plan first announced two years ago. The case, heard by a bench of justices Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Charanjeet Singh Gulati, is next listed for hearing on 17 September. The development could push back the timeline for Vedanta's demerger. The company had first announced its plan to demerge into six separately-listed entities in September 2023. It had aimed to complete the demerger by March 2025. However, last December, it estimated that the demerger would be delayed to September 2025 due to pending regulatory approvals—particularly from the NCLT. A spokesperson for Vedanta confirmed that the petroleum ministry had filed a representation before the NCLT. 'Further, Sebi (Securities and Exchange Board of India) in its affidavit has confirmed that it has no further comments on the merits of the (demerger) scheme and that the tribunal may proceed to adjudicate the matter. Also, Vedanta has already received NOC (no-objection certificate) from the stock exchanges on the modified scheme,' the spokesperson said. Mint independently could not ascertain the details of the petroleum ministry's objections. However, market regulator Sebi's assent to the demerger stands, said a person aware of the matter. Shares of Vedanta Ltd settled 1% lower at ₹ 445.45 apiece on the BSE on Wednesday. On 13 August, Sebi had issued an administrative warning to Vedanta, as per regulatory disclosures made by the company. The market regulator said that the company changed or modified its demerger plan after getting a no-objection certificate from the BSE without the written consent of Sebi. The changes pertain to the now-cancelled demerger of its base metals business. Originally, the company planned to demerge into six separately-listed entities. However, in December last year it decided to retain the base metals business in the parent firm and changed the demerger plan to five companies. The five firms will be Vedanta Aluminium, Vedanta Oil & Gas, Vedanta Power, Vedanta Iron and Steel and Vedanta Ltd, which will continue as the parent entity and hold the shares of Hindustan Zinc. Shareholders of Vedanta will receive one share in each of the new companies. 'The above non-compliance has been viewed seriously. Accordingly, the Company is hereby warned and advised to be careful in future to avoid recurrences of such lapses,' Sebi wrote in its letter, a copy of which was uploaded by Vedanta Ltd on the stock exchanges. The letter did not mention what the change or modification to the demerger plan was. The court has asked Sebi to file its affidavit within two weeks. Earlier, Viceroy Research, a US-based short-seller firm had accused Vedanta Group of alleged financial misconduct and misrepresentation, making empty promises to shore up share prices, manipulating asset values, raising off-balance sheet loans, and corporate governance issues. The short-seller first published its note on Vedanta on 9 July and has since published 21 notes on the Vedanta group. Viceroy has a short position against the London-based Vedanta Group's holding firm Vedanta Resources' bonds. It claims to have no exposure to the group's two listed firms in India.
