
Trump Administration Live Updates: President to Attend A.I. Summit in Pennsylvania
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday that the Trump administration can proceed with dismantling the Education Department by firing more than a thousand workers.
The order is a significant victory for the administration and could ease President Trump's efforts to sharply curtail the federal government's role in the nation's schools.
The Trump administration has announced plans to fire more than 1,300 workers, a move that would effectively gut the department, which manages federal loans for college, tracks student achievement and enforces civil rights laws in schools.
The Education Department began the year with more than 4,000 employees. The administration also fired some probationary workers and offered employees the ability to resign. Altogether, after the terminations, the Education Department will have a work force of about half the size it did before Mr. Trump returned to office.
The move by the justices represents an expansion of presidential power, allowing Mr. Trump to dismantle the inner workings of a government department created by Congress without legislators' input. The firings will hobble much of the department's work, supporters argued in court filings. Particularly hard hit was the department's Office for Civil Rights, which had seven of its 12 offices shuttered.
It comes after a decision by the justices last week that cleared the way for the Trump administration to move forward with cutting thousands of jobs across a number of federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, State and Treasury.
The order by the court was unsigned and gave no reasoning, as is typical in such emergency applications. No vote count was given, which is usual for emergency orders, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by the court's other two liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The three argued that Mr. Trump had overstepped his authority with his 'unilateral efforts to eliminate a cabinet-level agency established by Congress nearly half a century ago.'
'Only Congress has the power to abolish the department,' Justice Sotomayor wrote in her 19-page dissent.
The court's decision, she wrote, would have severe consequences for the country's students by unleashing 'untold harm, delaying or denying educational opportunities and leaving students to suffer from discrimination, sexual assault and other civil rights violations without the federal resources Congress intended.'
The order is technically temporary, in effect only while courts continue to consider the legality of Mr. Trump's move. In practice, fired workers whom a Boston judge had ordered be reinstated are now again subject to removal from their jobs.
Trump administration officials celebrated the court's decision, with Mr. Trump himself thanking the court on social media for 'a Major Victory to Parents and Students across the Country.'
A White House spokeswoman, Liz Huston, said in a statement that the court had 'once again recognized what radical district court judges refuse to accept — President Trump, as head of the executive branch, has absolute constitutional authority to direct and manage its agencies and officers.'
The education secretary, Linda McMahon, said in a statement that the department would press forward with terminating workers.
'We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most — to students, parents, and teachers,' Ms. McMahon said. She added that the administration would 'return education to the states,' but would 'continue to perform all statutory duties' while 'reducing education bureaucracy.'
Democrats and a union representing Education Department workers warned of dire consequences.
'This effort from the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education is playing with the futures of millions of Americans, and after just four months, the consequences are already evident across our education system,' Sheria Smith, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, said in a statement.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said on social media: 'This isn't streamlining. It's sabotage. And it's American kids paying the price.'
Mr. Trump had signed an executive order on March 20 instructing Ms. McMahon to start shutting down the federal agency, which manages federal loans for college, monitors student achievement and supports programs for students with disabilities. Trump administration officials cited low test scores by students as the reason to dismantle the department.
'We're going to shut it down, and shut it down as quickly as possible,' Mr. Trump said during the ceremony where he signed the executive order.
The move immediately set up a legal fight over the future of the department because it was created by an act of Congress, and legislators had not given approval to eliminate it.
Shortly after, two school districts, the American Federation of Teachers and 21 Democratic state attorneys general filed a legal challenge in federal court in Massachusetts. The challengers asked a judge to block the executive order and to unwind a round of layoffs that gutted the department's work force by about half.
Lawyers for the challengers argued that the administration's plans would interfere with the department's ability to carry out functions required by law.
On May 22, Judge Myong J. Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered the Trump administration to reinstate the fired employees while the lawsuit was pending. Judge Joun, who was nominated to the bench by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said he agreed that only Congress could eliminate the department and that the administration's actions amounted to an illegal shutdown of the agency.
On June 4, a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld Judge Joun's ruling. Two days later, the Trump administration filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, asking it to intervene and lift the trial judge's order. In the filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Judge Joun had 'thwarted the executive branch's authority to manage the Department of Education.'
In response, lawyers for the challengers argued that the agency's leaders had 'set out to destroy the agency by executive fiat' and without the support of Congress.
In court filings, the challengers asserted that the trial judge had properly determined that the government was likely to lose its argument that it had not eliminated the department. Judge Joun properly recognized that just because 'a skeleton crew remains' at the Education Department, that did not mean the Trump administration was 'faithfully carrying out Congress's mission' in what was effectively 'tearing the department down to the plywood,' they argued.
The Trump administration replied in court filings that the department had 'determined that it can carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared-down staff and that many discretionary functions are better left to the states.'
Michael C. Bender contributed reporting.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The former NBC host blasted the former president's son for a series of media appearances in which he blasted Joe Biden's critics.
Former NBC host Chuck Todd says Hunter Biden isn't doing himself—or Democrats—any favors with his media tour. The wayward member of the Biden family sat down for two interviews—with Andrew Gallaghan's popular Channel 5 podcast last weekend, and then with former Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison on the At Our Table podcast on Tuesday—going off on an expletive-laden rant against his father's detractors and opening up about his alcohol and drug addictions. 'I don't think this does Hunter Biden any good. I don't think this does Joe Biden any good. It certainly doesn't do the Democratic Party any good,' Todd said Friday on his podcast, adding that he's generally an advocate for going to therapy, 'but let's not do it public. Try to deal with your issues amongst yourself.'


The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump threatens to withhold trade deals from Thailand, Cambodia amid conflict
President Trump threatened to withhold potential trade deals from Thailand and Cambodia amid a border conflict that has displaced tens of thousands of civilians and left at least 32 people dead. Trump said on Saturday that he spoke with Cambodia's prime minister Hun Manet and that he called Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai to 'request' a ceasefire and an end to the cross-border war. 'We happen to be, by coincidence, currently dealing on Trade with both Countries, but do not want to make any Deal, with either Country, if they are fighting — And I have told them so,' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. 'Many people are being killed in this War, but it very much reminds me of the Conflict between Pakistan and India, which was brought to a successful halt,' the president added, referring to U.S. efforts to help broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May after the two exchanged tit-for-tat strikes. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has continued on Saturday, its third day. In Thailand, 19 people were killed, while in Cambodia, the death toll has reached 13, according to The Associated Press. The conflict has erupted after five Thai soldiers were wounded on Wednesday from a land mine explosion. In another Saturday post on Truth Social, Trump, who is visiting Scotland, said he had a 'very good conversation' with Wechayachai, Thailand's acting prime minister. 'Thailand, like Cambodia, wants to have an immediate Ceasefire, and PEACE. I am now going to relay that message back to the Prime Minister of Cambodia,' Trump wrote on Saturday. 'After speaking to both Parties, Ceasefire, Peace, and Prosperity seems to be a natural. We will soon see!' Trump's conversations with leaders of Cambodia and Thailand come as he has threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs on a host of countries, including the two currently at war. Both Bangkok and Phnom Penh would face a 36 percent reciprocal rate, which Trump and other administration officials said would go into effect on Aug. 1.


The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'