By Associated Press’s Mark Sherman
Washington (AP) Despite concerns that hundreds of thousands of federal employees would lose their jobs and that vital government services would be cut, the Supreme Court on Tuesday approved President Donald Trump’s plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce.
The Department of Government Efficiency has been leading the cuts, and the judges overturned lower court decisions that temporarily halted them.
In an unsigned ruling, the court stated that the justices were simply presented with an executive order signed by Trump and an administration instruction for agencies to reduce employment, not any specific cuts.
FairnessThe lone dissenting vote was cast by Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused her colleagues of showing a strong desire to approve this President’s legally questionable emergency measures.
Related Articles
-
Trump caught off guard by Pentagon s abrupt move to pause Ukraine weapons deliveries, AP sources say
-
Trump administration pulls back on plans to rewrite Biden-era asbestos ban
-
Noem says first responders in Texas still looking for a lot of little girls missing after flood
-
Trump Media files for Crypto Blue Chip ETF with SEC
-
A look at the countries that received Trump s tariff letters
Jackson spoke of dire repercussions in the real world. According to her, this executive action calls for the widespread cancelation of federal programs and services, the wholesale termination of employees, and the dissolution of a large portion of the federal government as established by Congress.
The high court decision extended Trump’s incredible winning streak, as the justices have permitted him to proceed with important aspects of his federal government reform plan. To date, the Justice Department’s repeated emergency appeals challenging lower court decisions as unjustly interfering with presidential authority have prompted the Supreme Court to step in.
Using billionaire supporter Elon Musk to spearhead the effort through DOGE, the Republican president has stated again and over again that voters given him a mandate for the task. Musk quit his job not long ago.
Tens of thousands of government employees have been placed on leave, fired, or quit their employment through deferred resignation schemes. Although the exact number of job layoffs is unknown, thousands of probationary employees have already been let go, and at least 75,000 federal employees have taken deferred resignations.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in May that the Trump administration cannot make significant cuts to the federal workforce without congressional consent. A panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 2-1, declined to stay Illston’s order, concluding that the reduction may have wider implications, such as on the country’s food safety system and veteran health care.
Illston ordered many federal agencies to stop implementing the president’s February signed workforce executive order and a follow-up memo from the Office of Personnel Management and DOGE. Former Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated Illston.
The nonprofit organizations and labor unions that filed a lawsuit against the reduction gave the justices a number of examples of what would occur if it were permitted to go into force, including 40% to 50% cuts at various agencies. Other cities that filed lawsuits included San Francisco, Chicago, and Baltimore.
The judgment made today has severely damaged our democracy and jeopardizes services that the American people depend on. The parties to the lawsuit stated in a joint statement that this ruling does not alter the obvious and basic fact that our Constitution forbids reorganizing government operations and arbitrarily terminating federal employees without the consent of Congress.
The departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs are among the organizations impacted by the order. It also holds true for the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, Small Business Association, and National Science Foundation.
The matter is currently still pending at Illston’s court.
