Supreme Court allows Trump to lay off nearly 1,400 Education Department employees
By MARK SHERMAN
The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to put his plan to dismantle the Education Department back on track — and to go through with laying off nearly 1,400 employees.
With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court on Monday paused an order from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, who issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs and calling into question the broader plan. The layoffs 'will likely cripple the department,' Joun wrote. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.
The high court action enables the administration to resume work on winding down the department, one of Trump's biggest campaign promises.
The court did not explain its decision in favor of Trump, as is customary in emergency appeals. But in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained that her colleagues were enabling legally questionable action on the part of the administration.
'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 for herself and Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said it's a 'shame' it took the Supreme Court's intervention to let Trump's plan move ahead.
'Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,' McMahon said in a statement.
A lawyer for the Massachusetts cities and education groups that sued over the plan said the lawsuit will continue, adding no court has yet ruled that what the administration wants to do is legal.
'Without explaining to the American people its reasoning, a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have dealt a devastating blow to this nation's promise of public education for all children. On its shadow docket, the Court has yet again ruled to overturn the decision of two lower courts without argument,' Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement.
The Supreme Court has handed Trump one victory after another in his effort to remake the federal government, after lower courts have found the administration's actions probably violate federal law. Last week, the justices cleared the way for Trump's plan to significantly reduce the size of the federal workforce. On the education front, the high court has previously allowed cuts in teacher-training grants to go forward.
Separately on Monday, more than 20 states sued the administration over billions of dollars in frozen education funding for after-school care, summer programs and more.
Education Department employees who were targeted by the layoffs have been on paid leave since March, according to a union that represents some of the agency's staff.
Joun's order had prevented the department from fully terminating them, though none had been allowed to return to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without Joun's order, the workers would have been terminated in early June.
The Education Department had said earlier in June that it was 'actively assessing how to reintegrate' the employees. A department email asked them to share whether they had gained other employment, saying the request was meant to 'support a smooth and informed return to duty.'
The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department.
One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other legal action was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general.
The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
2 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Why Is the US Punishing India – But Not China – for Buying Russian Oil?
When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine on February 22, 2022, the world was confronted not only with a brutal war of aggression but also with a dramatic reshaping of global oil flows. As Washington and its allies implemented sweeping sanctions aimed at crippling Moscow's war chest, two Asian economic powerhouses – India and China – emerged as vital lifelines for Russia's energy exports. What happened next has become one of the more puzzling episodes in recent U.S. foreign policy: the Trump administration has sharply penalized India for its expanding purchases of Russian crude – culminating in a 50 percent tariff on select exports – while allowing China – an even greater consumer of that very oil – to escape similar direct punishment. The disparity is so marked that it demands examination. It cannot be explained by reference to oil volumes alone, nor is it a simple matter of how international law is applied. Instead, it reflects a confluence of cold political calculation, relative economic leverage, and the subtle but consequential difference between how U.S. policymakers view India and China. What makes this story more complex still is the Trump administration's belief – one that shapes much of its strategic posture – that China might play a decisive role in brokering an end to the Ukraine war. India's post-invasion pivot to Russian oil has been extraordinary in scale and speed. Before the war, Russian crude accounted for less than 2 percent of India's oil imports. A year later, Russia was supplying nearly 40 percent, an all-time high that persisted into 2025. In absolute terms, India imported 88 million metric tonnes of Russian crude in fiscal year 2025, out of a total of 245 million tonnes – more than 1.7 million barrels per day, a 20-fold increase in just three years. Indian refiners, taking advantage of steep wartime discounts, adapted their facilities to handle this influx. Much of the oil was not only used domestically but refined into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel for export around the world – including to Western markets that officially barred the purchase of Russian-origin oil. China's role in Moscow's energy survival is even larger, if less conspicuous. By the middle of 2025, Chinese refiners were buying almost half of all Russian crude exports, while also absorbing vast quantities of coal, gas, and refined products. In many months, Beijing accounted for nearly 40 percent of all Russian fossil fuel export revenue. Yet China's purchases were often conducted out of the spotlight – channeled through intermediaries, mixed with other cargoes, and announced far less openly than India's. For Washington, the decision to target India and not China begins with the question of leverage. India, for all its growing assertiveness on the world stage, remains deeply dependent on Western markets, technology, and investment. The United States is one of its largest export destinations and a key source of high-tech collaboration. U.S. policymakers thus believe they can pressure India economically without risking the kind of systemic disruption that would follow a direct confrontation with China. China, in contrast, presents a different challenge. Years of trade wars, tech sanctions, and geopolitical disputes have left China-U.S. relations brittle, but they have also revealed the depth of mutual interdependence. A major U.S. tariff offensive tied to China's oil imports from Russia would almost certainly provoke retaliation on a scale that could shatter global supply chains, trigger inflationary shocks, and damage the U.S. economy in ways that would be politically costly. Moreover, China's highly opaque energy trade makes it harder to target with precision, allowing it to deflect public blame in a way India – whose oil dealings are overt and well-documented – cannot. The 'profiteering' narrative has also placed New Delhi in Washington's crosshairs. U.S. officials have accused Indian refiners of exploiting discounted Russian crude not just to fuel their own economy, but to re-export refined products to the very countries enforcing sanctions against Russia. In 2023, India exported over $86 billion in refined oil products, prompting U.S. frustration that a strategic partner was simultaneously benefiting from Western alignment and undermining its sanctions at the same time. China engages in similar activity, but shrouds it in far greater discretion, thus avoiding the same public rebuke. Beneath these debates over sanctions and trade lies a still more controversial rationale for Washington's restraint toward China: the belief that Beijing could help bring the Ukraine conflict to a negotiated close. U.S. President Donald Trump has long cast himself as the figure uniquely capable of securing a 'deal' that ends the war. In his calculus, President Xi Jinping is not simply Russia's most important partner; he is a potential kingmaker whose tacit support could lend legitimacy to any settlement between Kyiv and Moscow. Chinese leaders have been careful to encourage this perception, offering vaguely worded proposals for peace, presenting themselves as neutral conveners at major diplomatic forums, and signaling – without making concrete moves – that they favor dialogue. It is here that the divergence in U.S. treatment of India and China deepens. For Trump's team, India has little real sway over Putin, making it a safe target for punitive measures that reinforce the credibility of U.S. sanctions policy. China, by contrast, is seen as too important to alienate while a putative negotiating track remains open. The possibility – however slim – that Beijing might someday pressure Moscow toward compromise serves as an argument for strategic patience, not confrontation. Yet this is where the policy veers into dangerous illusion. The expectation that China will act as an honest peace broker is, in reality, inconsistent with Beijing's own interests. A drawn-out war serves China well. It distracts U.S. and European strategic focus from the Indo-Pacific, allowing Beijing more room to assert itself regionally. It locks Russia into a position of economic dependence, forcing Moscow to sell oil, gas, and other resources at deep discounts, bolstering China's energy security. And it erodes Western unity and leadership by fueling fatigue, economic pressures, and political division within NATO and the EU. Officially, Beijing may call for negotiations and profess neutrality, but in practice it has done little to pressure Putin toward a settlement – and has, in many ways, expanded its support for Russia through trade, joint projects, and diplomatic cover. The longer the war continues, the more China can present itself to the Global South as a counterweight to the West while tightening its grip on a sanction-strangled Russia. This makes the Trump administration's calculation – that indulgence now could yield Chinese cooperation later – not just overly optimistic but strategically self-defeating. It hands Beijing leverage over a European security crisis that the United States and its allies ought to control, and it gives Xi every reason to prolong the very conflict Washington hopes to resolve. The result is a sanctions regime that is uneven in application and riddled with conflicting priorities. By targeting India so forcefully, the U.S. risks alienating one of its most important emerging partners – at precisely the moment when India's cooperation on technology, defense, and regional security is most needed. By sparing China, Washington sends a message that large-scale violations of the sanctions regime will be tolerated if the violator is too important – or too feared – to punish, reinforcing the cynical perception that U.S. policy is dictated less by principle than by power calculus. If there is one lesson to draw, it is that sanctions and tariffs alone cannot compel compliance when geopolitical interests run this deep. Realism demands acknowledging that China's posture toward the Ukraine war is shaped by self-interest – and that self-interest points toward prolonging the conflict, not resolving it on Western terms. Continuing to hope otherwise will only weaken Washington's position, undermine its credibility with partners, and hand Beijing another opening to exploit the West's divisions. For U.S. policy to be effective, it must abandon wishful thinking and confront the truth of this balance. India's energy choices present a legitimate challenge to the sanctions regime, but the long-term strategic threat lies in China's ability to evade pressure while shaping the conflict's trajectory to its advantage. Until Washington recognizes this and acts accordingly, its approach to both India and China will remain reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to manipulation from the very powers it seeks to influence.
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump's takeover of Washington law enforcement begins as National Guard troops arrive
A member of the District of Columbia National Guard arrives at the District of Columbia National Guard Headquarters, Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) By ASHRAF KHALIL and LINDSAY WHITEHURST The new picture of law enforcement in the nation's capital began taking shape Tuesday as some of the 800 National Guard members deployed by the Trump administration began arriving as police and federal officials took the first steps in an uneasy partnership to reduce crime in what President Donald Trump called — without substantiation — a lawless city. The influx came the morning after the Republican president announced he would be activating the guard members and taking over the District's police department, something the law allows him to do temporarily. He cited a crime emergency — but referred to the same crime that city officials stress is already falling noticeably. Mayor Muriel Bowser pledged to work alongside the federal officials Trump has tasked with overseeing the city's law enforcement, while insisting the police chief remained in charge of the department and its officers. 'How we got here or what we think about the circumstances — right now we have more police, and we want to make sure we use them,' she told reporters. The tone was a shift from the day before, when Bowser said Trump's plan to take over the Metropolitan Police Department and call in the National Guard was not a productive step and argued his perceived state of emergency simply doesn't match the declining crime numbers. Still, the law gives the federal government more sway over the capital city than in U.S. states, and Bowser said her administration's ability to push back is limited. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on social media that the meeting was productive. The law allows Trump to take over the D.C. police for up to 30 days, though White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested it could last longer as authorities later 'reevaluate and reassess." Extending federal control past that time would require Congressional approval, something likely tough to achieve in the face of Democratic resistance. About 850 federal law enforcement officers were deployed in Washington on Monday and arrested 23 people overnight, Leavitt said. The charges, she said, included gun and drug crimes, drunk driving, subway fare evasion and homicide. The U.S. Park Police has also removed 70 homeless encampments. People who were living in them can leave, go to a homeless shelter or go into drug addiction treatment, Leavitt said. Those who refuse could face fines or jail time. While Trump invokes his plan by saying that 'we're going to take our capital back,' Bowser and the MPD maintain that violent crime overall in Washington has decreased to a 30-year low after a sharp rise in 2023. Carjackings, for example, dropped about 50% in 2024 and are down again this year. More than half of those arrested, however, are juveniles, and the extent of those punishments is a point of contention for the Trump administration. Bowser, a Democrat, spent much of Trump's first term in office openly sparring with the Republican president. She fended off his initial plans for a military parade through the streets and stood in public opposition when he called in a multi-agency flood of federal law enforcement to confront anti-police brutality protesters in summer 2020. She later had the words 'Black Lives Matter' painted in giant yellow letters on the street about a block from the White House. In Trump's second term, backed by Republican control of both houses of Congress, Bowser has walked a public tightrope for months, emphasizing common ground with the Trump administration on issues such as the successful effort to bring the NFL's Washington Commanders back to the District of Columbia. She watched with open concern for the city streets as Trump finally got his military parade this summer. Her decision to dismantle Black Lives Matter Plaza earlier this year served as a neat metaphor for just how much the power dynamics between the two executives had evolved. Now that fraught relationship enters uncharted territory as Trump has followed through on months of what many D.C. officials had quietly hoped were empty threats. The new standoff has cast Bowser in a sympathetic light, even among her longtime critics. 'It's a power play and we're an easy target,' said Clinique Chapman, CEO of the D.C. Justice Lab. A frequent critic of Bowser, whom she accuses of 'over policing our youth' with the recent expansions of Washington's youth curfew, Chapman said Trump's latest move 'is not about creating a safer D.C. It's just about power.' Bowser contends that all the power resides with Trump and that local officials can do little other than comply and make the best of it. As long as Washington remains a federal enclave with limited autonomy under the 1973 Home Rule Act, she said, it will remain vulnerable to such takeovers. Trump is the first president to use the law's Section 740 to take over Washington's police for up to 30 days during times of emergencies. For Trump, the effort to take over public safety in D.C. reflects an escalation of his aggressive approach to law enforcement. The District of Columbia's status as a congressionally established federal district gives him a unique opportunity to push his tough-on-crime agenda, though he has not proposed solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime. Trump's declaration of a state of emergency fits the general pattern of his second term in office. He has declared states of emergency on issues ranging from border protection to economic tariffs, enabling him to essentially rule via executive order. In many cases, he has moved forward while the courts sorted them out. Bowser's claims about successfully driving down violent crime rates received backing earlier this year from an unlikely source. Ed Martin, Trump's original choice for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, issued a press release in April hailing a 25% drop in violent crime rates from the previous year. His recently confirmed replacement candidate, former judge and former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, brushed aside the data to argue that violent crime remains a significant issue for victims. 'These were vibrant human beings cut down because of illegal guns,' she said. Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington, Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix and Ali Swenson in New York contributed reporting. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Ukraine, sidelined in Trump-Putin summit, fights Russian grab for more territory
Service members of the 58th Separate Motorized Infantry Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces fire a cannon of a BTR-4 armoured personnel carrier during military exercises at a training ground, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kharkiv region, Ukraine August 11, 2025. REUTERS/Sofiia Gatilova By Andrew Osborn and Lili Bayer Small bands of Russian soldiers thrust deeper into eastern Ukraine on Tuesday before a summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump, which European leaders fear could end in peace terms imposed on an unlawfully shrunken Ukraine. In one of the most extensive incursions so far this year, Russian troops advanced near the coal-mining town of Dobropillia, part of Putin's campaign to take full control of Ukraine's Donetsk region. Ukraine's military dispatched reserve troops, saying they were in difficult combat against Russian soldiers. Trump has said any peace deal would involve "some swapping of territories to the betterment of both" Russia and Ukraine, which has up to now depended on the U.S. as its main arms supplier. But because all the areas being contested lie within Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his European Union allies fear that he will face pressure to give up far more than Russia does. Trump's administration tempered expectations on Tuesday for major progress toward a ceasefire, calling his meeting on Friday with Putin in Alaska a "listening exercise." Zelenskyy and most of his European counterparts have said a lasting peace cannot be secured without Ukraine at the negotiating table, and a deal must comply with international law, Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity. They will hold a virtual meeting with Trump on Wednesday to underscore those concerns before the Putin summit, the first U.S.-Russia summit since 2021. "An imitated rather than genuine peace will not hold for long and will only encourage Russia to seize even more territory," Zelenskyy said in a statement on Tuesday. Zelenskiy said Russia must agree to a ceasefire before territorial issues are discussed. He would reject any Russian proposal that Ukraine pull its troops from the eastern Donbas region and cede its defensive lines. Asked why Zelenskyy was not joining the U.S. and Russian leaders at the Alaska summit, a White House spokeswoman said on Tuesday that the bilateral meeting had been proposed by Putin, and that Trump accepted to get a "better understanding" of how to end the war. "Only one party that's involved in this war is going to be present, and so this is for the president to go and to get a more firm and better understanding of how we can hopefully bring this war to an end," press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. "You need both countries to agree to a deal." Trump is open to a trilateral meeting with Putin and Zelenskyy later, Leavitt said. RUSSIA ADVANCES IN EASTERN UKRAINE Ukraine faces a shortage of soldiers after Russia invaded more than three years ago, easing the path for the latest Russian advances. "This breakthrough is like a gift to Putin and Trump during the negotiations," said Sergei Markov, a former Kremlin adviser, suggesting it could increase pressure on Ukraine to yield territory under any deal. Ukraine's military meanwhile said it had retaken two villages in the eastern region of Sumy on Monday, part of a small reversal in more than a year of slow, attritional Russian gains in the southeast. Russia, which launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, has mounted a new offensive this year in Sumy after Putin demanded a "buffer zone" there. Ukraine and its European allies fear that Trump, keen to claim credit for making peace and seal new business deals with Russia's government, will end up rewarding Putin for his 11 years spent in efforts to seize Ukrainian territory, the last three in open warfare. European leaders have said Ukraine must be capable of defending itself if peace and security is to be guaranteed on the continent, and that they are ready to contribute further. "Ukraine cannot lose this war and nobody has the right to pressure Ukraine into making territorial or other concessions, or making decisions that smack of capitulation," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said at a government meeting. "I hope we can convince President Trump about the European position." Zelenskyy has said he and European leaders "all support President Trump's determination." Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Putin's principal ally in Europe, was the only leader not to join the EU's statement of unity. He mocked his counterparts as "sidelined" and said Russia had already defeated Ukraine. "The Ukrainians have lost the war. Russia has won this war," Orban told the "Patriot" YouTube channel in an interview. Trump had been recently hardening his stance towards Russia, agreeing to send more U.S. weapons to Ukraine and threatening hefty trade tariffs on buyers of Russian oil in an ultimatum that has now lapsed. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
