The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to advance with an executive order that requires a restructuring of federal agencies and mass layoffs of federal workers.
In a two -paragraph without signing, the court explained that he was raising a preliminary court order issued by a district court in California because “the government is likely to succeed in its argument that the Executive Order and [OMB] Memorandum are legal. “
Police officers of the Supreme Court are outside the Supreme Court in Washington, on June 27, 2025.
Mandel and/AFP
The Court pointed out, however, that the judges “do not express their opinion on the legality of any RIF agency [reduction in force] and the reorganization plan produces or approved “by the administration under the direction of Trump”. Those plans are not before this court, “he said.
The decision, another victory for Trump in the Supreme Court, allows the Government to start taking measures to drastically review the agencies and departments of 21, including the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Energy, Treasury and State.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief statement that attended the Court’s decision, emphasized that the legality of the administration plans itself has not been answered.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissent in the matter. In a 15 -page opinion, the Junior Justice described the decision “is not only truly unfortunate but also arrogant and meaningless.”
The coalition that brought the case, which includes unions, non -profit organizations and cities and counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas and Washington, described the decision of the Supreme Court as a disappointment.
“Today’s decision has given our democracy a serious blow and puts services in which the American people trust a serious danger. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and firing federal workers in the mass without any approval of the congress is not allowed by our Constitution,” said the coalition in a statement. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities that we represent and argue this case to protect the critical public services in which we trust to keep us safe and healthy.”
