Latest news with #massfirings
CNN
8 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump returns to Supreme Court with emergency appeal over mass firings
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court on Monday to ask the justices to reverse a lower court order that has blocked mass firings and major reorganizations at federal agencies, a case that could have enormous implications for the president's power to reshape the federal government. The latest emergency appeal involving President Donald Trump's second term to reach the Supreme Court followed an order last week from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that kept on hold Trump's plans for the sweeping layoffs – known as reductions in force, or RIFs. 'Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland' of the president's authority, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court in the appeal. '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' his core constitutional powers. The lawsuit was filed by more than a dozen unions, non-profits and local governments, which are billing it as the largest legal challenge to the Trump administration's effort to downsize the federal workforce. A senior administration official told CNN last month that it is watching the case closely because of its significance for allowing Trump to reduce the size of and restructure the federal government. Trump had asked the Supreme Court to wade into the case once before, but the Department of Justice withdrew the appeal days later when a federal district court issued a more fulsome order blocking Trump from proceeding. In its 2-1 opinion denying Trump's request to pause that district court order, the 9th Circuit panel said the Trump executive order at issue 'far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution.' The majority concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the mass layoffs were unlawful. The case stems from an executive order, which Trump signed in mid-February, that kicked off the process of the federal employees' mass culling. Agencies, which are working with the Department of Government Efficiency to carry out the mandate, were required to file reorganization plans with the administration earlier this year. But the unions have complained that the details of those plans have not been shared. Already, at least 121,000 federal workers have been laid off or targeted for layoffs since Trump took office, according to a CNN analysis. The figure doesn't include those placed on administrative leave or those who took voluntary buyouts. The order covers major reductions at more than a dozen agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Treasury, State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency.
CNN
8 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump returns to Supreme Court with emergency appeal over mass firings
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court on Monday to ask the justices to reverse a lower court order that has blocked mass firings and major reorganizations at federal agencies, a case that could have enormous implications for the president's power to reshape the federal government. The latest emergency appeal involving President Donald Trump's second term to reach the Supreme Court followed an order last week from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that kept on hold Trump's plans for the sweeping layoffs – known as reductions in force, or RIFs. 'Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland' of the president's authority, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court in the appeal. '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' his core constitutional powers. The lawsuit was filed by more than a dozen unions, non-profits and local governments, which are billing it as the largest legal challenge to the Trump administration's effort to downsize the federal workforce. A senior administration official told CNN last month that it is watching the case closely because of its significance for allowing Trump to reduce the size of and restructure the federal government. Trump had asked the Supreme Court to wade into the case once before, but the Department of Justice withdrew the appeal days later when a federal district court issued a more fulsome order blocking Trump from proceeding. In its 2-1 opinion denying Trump's request to pause that district court order, the 9th Circuit panel said the Trump executive order at issue 'far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution.' The majority concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the mass layoffs were unlawful. The case stems from an executive order, which Trump signed in mid-February, that kicked off the process of the federal employees' mass culling. Agencies, which are working with the Department of Government Efficiency to carry out the mandate, were required to file reorganization plans with the administration earlier this year. But the unions have complained that the details of those plans have not been shared. Already, at least 121,000 federal workers have been laid off or targeted for layoffs since Trump took office, according to a CNN analysis. The figure doesn't include those placed on administrative leave or those who took voluntary buyouts. The order covers major reductions at more than a dozen agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Treasury, State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency.
BBC News
2 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Trump's mass firings to remain on hold, appeals court rules
Mass firings of federal employees which were ordered by US President Donald Trump will remain paused, an appeals court has Trump had signed an executive order in February directing agency heads to begin "large-scale reductions" in staffing. Those efforts to slash the federal workforce were halted by a California judge earlier this Friday in a 2-1 ruling, a San Francisco-based appeals court denied the Trump administration's request to unfreeze that injunction. It is likely the administration will now ask the US Supreme Court to weigh in. "The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. "The President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies."The Trump administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction which had been given by Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco. The judge questioned how an overhaul of federal agencies could be actioned without congressional case was brought by federal employees unions, local governments and non-profits who argued against Trump's executive order, as well as directives which were issued by the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget to implement Trump's cuts are part of the Trump administrations efforts to curtail government spending through funding freezes and firings - led by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge).Trump has repeatedly promised to slash government spending and reduce the federal workforce. He tasked billionaire Elon Musk and Doge with leading that charge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have reportedly been fired, taken buyouts or been placed on leave since Trump took office. The Trump administration said they plan to fight back against the latest court ruling. "A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch," the White House said in a statement to US media.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's mass firings of federal workers must remain on hold, court rules
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday night that President Donald Trump's orders for mass removals of federal staff and several agencies will remain on hold. The Trump administration had requested that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals freeze an earlier order from a lower court that put a stop to the mass firings at several agencies, CNN noted. The new court order is a significant step back for the president and his attempt to radically reduce the size of the federal government. The widespread firings, known as reductions in force (RIFs), have remained on hold since May 9, following the earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston stating that Trump needed congressional authorization for such a wholesale makeover of the federal government. The three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit stated in a two-to-one ruling that Trump's executive order in question 'far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution.' The majority found that the challengers could succeed on the merits of their arguments that the mass firings were illegal, and argued that the administration didn't manage to meet the other factors that would have prompted an emergency appellate intervention. The president had previously requested that the Supreme Court take on the case. That request didn't go anywhere initially. It's likely, however, that the issue will end up before the top court in the land once more. The case was put forward by unions representing federal employees, outside groups, and local governments. They challenged the executive order Trump signed in February, which called for a widespread restructuring of the government, along with directives from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget to enact the president's policy. The offices asked that agencies send in plans for how they would implement Trump's order to slash the workforce. The challengers argued that both OPM and OMB were making the final decisions on the size of the firings for each agency. They put forward evidence that proposals for less radical cuts were being shot down, making the firings illegal. The lawsuit also took aim at the involvement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The agencies covered by the previous ruling by Illston, halting the firings, include almost every cabinet department, such as the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Interior, State, Labor, and Treasury. The 9th Circuit said on Friday that Congress, not the president, gave agencies the power to enact widespread firings. Bill Clinton appointee, Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher, said in the majority ruling that the 'kind of reorganization contemplated by the Order has long been subject to Congressional approval.' Fletcher was joined in the majority by a Joe Biden appointee, Circuit Judge Lucy Koh. Dissenting from the ruling was George W. Bush appointee Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan, who wrote that 'the President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct RIFs.' 'We are gratified by the court's decision today to allow the pause of these harmful actions to endure while our case proceeds,' the groups challenging the president's orders said in a statement, CNN noted.
The Independent
3 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Trump's mass firings of federal workers must remain on hold, court rules
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday night that President Donald Trump 's orders for mass removals of federal staff and several agencies will remain on hold. The Trump administration had requested that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals freeze an earlier order from a lower court that put a stop to the mass firings at several agencies, CNN noted. The new court order is a significant step back for the president and his attempt to radically reduce the size of the federal government. The widespread firings, known as reductions in force (RIFs), have remained on hold since May 9, following the earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston stating that Trump needed congressional authorization for such a wholesale makeover of the federal government. The three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit stated in a two-to-one ruling that Trump's executive order in question 'far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution.' The majority found that the challengers could succeed on the merits of their arguments that the mass firings were illegal, and argued that the administration didn't manage to meet the other factors that would have prompted an emergency appellate intervention. The president had previously requested that the Supreme Court take on the case. That request didn't go anywhere initially. It's likely, however, that the issue will end up before the top court in the land once more. The case was put forward by unions representing federal employees, outside groups, and local governments. They challenged the executive order Trump signed in February, which called for a widespread restructuring of the government, along with directives from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget to enact the president's policy. The offices asked that agencies send in plans for how they would implement Trump's order to slash the workforce. The challengers argued that both OPM and OMB were making the final decisions on the size of the firings for each agency. They put forward evidence that proposals for less radical cuts were being shot down, making the firings illegal. The lawsuit also took aim at the involvement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The agencies covered by the previous ruling by Illston, halting the firings, include almost every cabinet department, such as the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Interior, State, Labor, and Treasury. The 9th Circuit said on Friday that Congress, not the president, gave agencies the power to enact widespread firings. Bill Clinton appointee, Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher, said in the majority ruling that the 'kind of reorganization contemplated by the Order has long been subject to Congressional approval.' Fletcher was joined in the majority by a Joe Biden appointee, Circuit Judge Lucy Koh. Dissenting from the ruling was George W. Bush appointee Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan, who wrote that 'the President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct RIFs.' 'We are gratified by the court's decision today to allow the pause of these harmful actions to endure while our case proceeds,' the groups challenging the president's orders said in a statement, CNN noted.
