Trump Achieves Legal Win as Supreme Court Endorses Significant Cuts to Education Department
On Monday, the Supreme Court approved a request from the Trump administration to temporarily suspend a federal judge’s ruling in Massachusetts that mandated the Department of Education to reinstate approximately 1,400 employees terminated earlier this year during efforts to downsize its workforce. In a brief and unsigned decision, the justices halted the May order from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, who asserted that the Trump administration aimed to effectively dismantle the Department, despite believing it lacked the authority to do so.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented with a 19-page opinion supported by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She criticized the court’s ruling as “indefensible,” arguing that it empowers the Executive Branch to nullify statutes by eliminating essential personnel. Sotomayor remarked that the majority appears either willfully ignorant of or naïve about the serious implications for constitutional separation of powers.
The court’s decision arose from a dispute initiated shortly after an announcement by the department on March 11 regarding workforce reductions affecting 1,378 employees. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated in a press release that these cuts reflected the department’s commitment to efficiency and accountability, ensuring resources were prioritized for students, parents, and teachers.
Following this announcement, President Donald Trump issued an executive order nine days later directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate” closure of the department. On March 21, he declared plans for transferring programs for students with special needs and federal student loans from the Department of Education to other agencies: Health and Human Services and Small Business Administration.
The plaintiffs—comprising 19 states led by New York along with Washington D.C., two public school districts, and teachers’ unions—filed suit in Massachusetts claiming that these workforce reductions violated both constitutional provisions and federal administrative laws.
On May 22, Judge Joun prohibited implementation of Trump’s announced cuts, ordered reinstatement of terminated employees, and barred any transfer of student loan programs or special needs initiatives. He noted that such significant reductions rendered it nearly impossible for the Department to fulfill its legal responsibilities.
On June 6, seeking intervention from the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued against Joun’s ruling. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer maintained that Joun was overstepping his bounds by preventing departmental restructuring without proper authority. He further claimed that Joun’s order exemplified errors seen in recent district-court injunctions attempting to usurp control over federal employment matters.
In response, school districts and unions warned that allowing disassembly of the Department would lead to irreversible damage but acknowledged that if successful in court eventually, government plans could be implemented only slightly delayed.
The states contended that while staff reductions are permissible if they do not inhibit statutory duties execution, there must be alternative strategies addressing state grievances stemming from diminished capabilities at public colleges due to significant staffing cuts affecting reviews for federal student aid eligibility.
Nearly a month later, the court acted on Trump’s appeal with a brief unsigned order lacking any rationale behind its majority decision.
In her dissenting remarks, Sotomayor highlighted that prior administrations have recognized they do not possess unilateral power to abolish departments designated by Congress for specific statutory mandates. However, she noted President Trump’s clear intent was towards closing down operations without congressional involvement.
Sotomayor emphasized in her dissenting view presented at Supreme Court hearings that “the Government does not defend its actions’ legality,” opting instead for assorted jurisdictional arguments seeking emergency relief—none sufficiently justifying court intervention according to her assessment.
She warned that suspending Joun’s mandate would cause extensive harm by delaying or denying educational opportunities while exposing students to discrimination and civil rights violations without necessary federal support intended by Congress. The majority seemed more focused on relieving government obligations toward wrongfully terminated employees than protecting individuals facing genuine risks during ongoing litigation.
