Power to Fire: SCOTUS Greenlights Trump-Era Government Layoffs
July 21st, 2025
Aaniya Khan
Sign up for our newly launched weekly newsletter here.
July 21st, 2025
Aaniya Khan
In a string of quiet yet seismic decisions, the Supreme Court has paved the way for President Trump’s sweeping federal layoff plan to move forward. Two emergency rulings issued over the past week allow the Trump Administration to proceed with firing thousands of government employees across numerous agencies, including Education, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and the EPA, even as legal challenges continue.
On July 8, the first ruling was issued, lifting a lower court’s injunction that had frozen Trump’s initial mass layoff initiative. That lawsuit had challenged the constitutionality of bypassing Congress to reorganize or effectively shutter parts of the federal workforce. But the Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, allowed the plan to proceed while litigation plays out, signaling that the administration is “likely to prevail” in defending the move.
Then, on July 14, the Court doubled down. In McMahon v. New York, justices stayed a Boston federal judge’s order that had blocked the termination of roughly 1,300 Department of Education employees. This decision has cleared the way for those firings to begin immediately—many of them civil servants who had been placed on “administrative leave” since March.
Critics are calling it a quiet constitutional crisis. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a blistering 15-page dissent, arguing that the rulings essentially allow the Executive Branch to dismantle parts of the federal government without congressional approval. Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed that concern, warning of “irreparable institutional damage” to the separation of powers doctrine.
Agencies are already acting swiftly. After the Supreme Court’s July 8 ruling, the Department of Health and Human Services formally began executing layoffs: thousands of staff who received RIF notices in April were officially separated on July 14, although a separate injunction continues to protect certain CDC, FDA Tobacco and Head Start employees. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismantled its stand-alone Office of Research and Development, initiating a workforce reduction of more than 3,700 positions—about 23% of its staff—as it reorganizes into a new applied science office. Some agencies have begun voluntary separation or attrition programs in lieu of full RIFs, but cuts across State, Education, and HHS are proceeding apace.
Proponents of the mass layoffs—including Trump and his Education Secretary— say the cuts are about efficiency and decentralization, arguing that bloated agencies waste taxpayer dollars, and that functions like education are better managed at the state level. However, opponents fear these moves are a smokescreen for gutting essential services and consolidating presidential power.
These rulings may reshape how presidents exercise authority through the executive branch. With more cases pending—including challenges from public sector unions and whistleblower groups—this legal fight is far from over.
But the message from SCOTUS is clear: for now, the president holds the pink slip.
Extemp Analysis by: Lindsey Zhao
Question: What are the implications of McMahon v. New York for federal layoffs?
AGD: A story about a federal employee’s uncertainty about the future of their livelihood would do well to set the uncertain, worried mood of many people’s situations.
Background: explain that Trump admin has pushed for various federal layoffs, but they’ve run into various legal barriers—McMahon v. New York was the case that cleared the way for these firings to continue
Answer: make them easier and more widespread
not requiring Congressional approval
need Congress approval to abolish an agency, but Trump is effectively closing it regardless
allowing an expanded scope of layoffs
precedent is set to allow Trump admin to halt agency operations similar to what he did for the Education Dept.
granting more emergency appeals
Analysis + Concluding Thoughts
Legal questions are usually pretty complicated and pretty difficult to think of three points for. Usually the strategy is to go super super specific and use specific parts of the ruling to support your argument.
Read More Here: