The decision of the Supreme Court on the layoffs of the Department of Education fuels Trump’s shooting push

The Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily authorize mass layoffs in the Department of Education marked the last in a series of decisions of the High Court greening the President’s plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce.

Authorizing the cessation of approximately 1,400 employees in the Department of Education is one of the many cases of the Supreme Court showing significant deference to the power of Trump on the executive power. In other cases, the High Court approved Trump’s executive decree preliminaryly to sweep the abolition of federal jobs and showed an opening to the president reducing the independence of certain agencies.

Often these decisions, issued in an emergency at the request of the Trump administration, came with few explanations. The High Court did not, for example, explain why it allowed Trump to carry out mass layoffs in the Department of Education. But this decision increases the president’s long -term efforts to dismantle the department, for the moment.

South Texas College law professor Joshua Blackman said that the complainants’ argument that Congress was to approve such a radical change to an agency did not seem convincing for the high court.

Supreme court rules on Trump’s mass dismissals in the education department

The Supreme Court allowed the Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to carry out mass dismissals, at least temporarily. (Valerie Plesch / Picture Alliance via Getty Images; Stefani Reynolds / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“I think they are essentially saying:” We do not think it is trying to restructure the agency “, told Blackman to Fox News Digital. “Jackson and Sotomayor judges have somehow made this point in dissent, but I don’t think it resonates with the majority.”

Blackman noted that even if these ghost file decisions are temporary while the prosecution takes place in the lower courts, they have sustainable power. The dispute can take two or three years, and employees who lose their jobs probably do not wait so long to return to government, he said.

He also declared that these employees are not “in theory, at least”, underwent an irreparable substance because “the reintegrated with the salary of the back are an option”. Irreparable damage is a criterion that judges are considered to be before proposing emergency orders.

Another friendly decision

Last week, the Supreme Court temporarily reversed the ordinance of judge Susan Illston preventing the administration from acting on the image of Trump management to reduce the labor market.

“The president has the power to request changes to the executive branch agencies, but he must do so in a legitimate manner and, in the case of large -scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch,” wrote Illston, a judge appointed by Clinton based in California.

“ This will happen quickly ”: the State Department is ready to act after the dismissals of the Green Agency of the Supreme Court

Former President Donald Trump speaks in a campaign town hall on October 14, 2024 in Oaks, Pennsylvania. (AP photo / Alex Brandon)

Trump signed a decree after taking office by announcing a “strength reduction” initiative. To order Trump, the management and budget office and the staff management office sent a directive To the heads of government agencies in February to develop plans to eliminate jobs.

“Agency should focus on the maximum elimination of functions that are not mandated by law by conducting the highest quality and effective delivery of their legally required functions,” said the memo.

A group of labor organizations and non -profit organizations continued, arguing that a massive reorganization of the government required the approval of the congress.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against them by stopping Illston’s injunction. Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan reassured each other with the conservative majority, who found that the decree and the note are legal. The majority noted that the decision does not reflect the opinions of judges on specific dismissals to the agency and that they should be examined as a separate case.

Jonathan Turley, professor of law at the University of George Washington, told “Fox & Friends” that the High Court sent a “clear” message on overtaking.

“It is another blow through the arc against the lower courts that they must drop,” said Turley. “They must stop with these injunctions. It is six months late. It could have been much longer, and the court reports:” We will be on you very quickly if you continue to make these types of orders. “”

Pending layoffs

The decision enabled the Secretary of State Marco Rubio to dismiss more than 1,300 employees of the State Department.

Since Trump took up his duties, tens of thousands of federal employees have accepted administration buyout offers or were released. But many other layoffs are still wrapped in prosecution.

Certain dismissal decisions remain pending due to the orders of the judges of the district courts. In some cases, the Trump administration argued that the recent Supreme Court decision to remove universal injunctions was a sufficient reason for these judges to overturn the course.

In a trial, the States led by Democrats continued the States on the decision of the Secretary of Health and Social Services, Robert Kennedy Jr., to end around 10,000 employees. Justice Melissa Dubose, a person named from Biden based in the Rhode Island, took the side of the States and blocked the endings. The judge must now decide whether his injunction is in contradiction with the new Supreme Court decision on universal injunctions.

Humphrey’s executor

The reduction in government staff coincides with the president’s controversial decision to dismiss several childcare dogs and members of independent agencies without reason.

In May, the Supreme Court reassured Trump on two of the layoffs, fueling speculation that the high court aims to cancel a 90-year precedent as part of the Humphrey executor against the United States.

This decision revealed that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not dismiss a member of the Federal Trade Commission without reason, such as the negligence of tasks or embezzlement, because it was in conflict with an adopted law congress which established the Commission.

The Supreme Court allows the federal employment of Trump’s “baule of detraction” while the legal struggle continues

The judges of the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson (Getty Images)

In the case of Trump, the Supreme Court temporarily approved two layoffs involving the heads of the National Labor Relations and Merit Systems Protection Board. The prescription of the high court was not signed but indicated that the three liberal judges dissident.

“Because the Constitution constitutes the executive power of the president … It can delete without cause executives who exercise this power in its name, subject to close exceptions recognized by our previous ones,” said the order.

The decision of the Supreme Court was a boon for the implementation by Trump of unitary executive theory, a legal concept which emphasizes presidential control. However, the order included a score note that the conclusion of the Supreme Court was superficial and that no final decision had been made concerning the independent advice.

Kagan was torn in the majority for letting Trump move forward with layoffs.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

“Not since the 1950s (or even before), a president, for no legitimate reason, tried to withdraw an officer from a classic independent agency – a multi -member bipartite commission exercising a regulatory power whose master status contains a provision because of the facts,” wrote Kagan.

Other similar prosecution, including one carried by two commissioners of the FTC, licensed, are still pending, and the Supreme Court has not yet weighed on them.