The Education Department can move forward with layoffs of around 1,300 employees it previously notified it would cut after the Supreme Court on Monday struck down a court order blocking those reductions from moving forward.
The Trump administration issued reduction-in-force notices to roughly one-third of the workforce in March, but in May a federal judge in Massachusetts issued an injunction after finding the cuts made it “effectively impossible” for Education to carry out its legally required responsibilities. The employees have to date sat on paid administrative leave, but the administration can now move forward with their terminations.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was only temporary in nature, and the case will still be argued on the merits before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit before potentially returning to the high court for a full hearing. In the meantime, however, Education can proceed with removing employees from its rolls.
The decision followed one the Supreme Court reached last week in a larger case, which allowed RIFs at nearly every other major agency to move forward. The State Department was the first to move forward with widespread layoffs following that decision, with more expected to follow suit soon. The Health and Human Services Department has similarly kept the 10,000 employees it sent layoff notices to on paid leave due to a court order, which remains in effect.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented on the decision to grant a stay to the lower court’s injunction. The cuts, which when combined with voluntary and incentivized departures would lead to an overall workforce reduction of 50%, amount to a dismantling of the department, the justices said, which only Congress can authorize.
“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 in the dissent. The majority, she added, “hands the executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out.”
The Trump administration successfully argued it was “too speculative” for the states, school districts and unions who brought the suit to argue the mass dismissals would have a negative impact, though the dissenting justices said that claim was belied “by both the record and common sense.” The plaintiffs in the case had sought to demonstrate harms they had already suffered from entire components being eliminated and staffing at key offices being slashed.
The coalition that brought the lawsuit said the decision was a “significant blow to public education” but vowed to continue fighting in court.
“We are incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward,” the groups said. “This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation. Children will be among those hurt the most by this decision.”
The administration also suggested Education employees must take their claims to the Merit Systems Protection or the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The dissenting justices said the plaintiffs were not challenging individual employment decisions but the “effective dismantling of the department itself.”
The judge in Massachusetts that issued the injunction had ordered Education to put employees back into their roles, but the administration had dragged its feet in doing so by citing logistical hurdles.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon in May reiterated to lawmakers her intention to eliminate her department and said she was embarking on its “final mission.” She noted Education had already recalled some employees who received RIF notices because their work was subsequently deemed essential.
