The United States Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday allowing the Trump Administration’s “workforce optimization” initiatives to resume for the time being while litigation is pending in the lower courts.
Eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices signed Tuesday’s order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a brief concurring opinion, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a scathing fifteen-page dissent.
At the start of June, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to halt enforcement of a California federal district court’s injunction preventing Executive Order 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMG) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from being implemented.
Executive Order 14210 — Implementing The President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative — instructs the OMB director to submit a plan for “reduc[ing] the size of the Federal Government’s workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.”
“To restore accountability to the American public, this order commences a critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy,” the Executive Order states. “By eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity, my Administration will empower American families, workers, taxpayers, and our system of Government itself.”
The Executive Order also requires agency heads to develop a “data-driven plan” in collaboration with the appropriate Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team lead “consistent with applicable law.”
The stay issued Tuesday by the Supreme Court focuses only on the legality of the Executive Order and Memorandum themselves, not any particular reduction-in-force or reorganization plans that they direct.
Although the majority’s order notes a belief that the Trump Administration is likely to succeed “on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful,” the brief decision does not delve into any further detail about their reasoning.
Justice Sotomayor’s one-paragraph concurrence highlights how the Executive Order explicitly states that agencies must plan their reorganizations and force reductions in a manner that is consistent with existing law.
“The plans themselves are not before the Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” she said.
[RELATED: SCOTUS Reins In Federal Judges on Nationwide Injunctions, Yet to Rule on Birthright Citizenship]
Justice Jackson’s stark and lengthy dissent suggests that the Court has overstepped its authority by overriding the lower court’s determination of the government’s likelihood of succeeding “on the merits with respect to such a fact dependent dispute.”
“So it should have left well enough alone,” Jackson wrote, accusing her fellow Justices of having “demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious action in an emergency posture.”
Jackson then went on to accuse the Administration of “rush[ing] up the chain of review” to obtain a stay from the Supreme Court instead of “directing its attention and resources to fully litigating the merits of the challenge to its authority in the courts below.”
She then when to characterize President Donald Trump’s (R) order as an “unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.”
“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determination,” Jackson wrote.
“For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” Jackson concluded. “In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
