The Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump to move forward with his plan to significantly reduce the workforce of the Education Department, enabling the layoff of nearly 1,400 employees. On Monday (July 14), the court paused an order from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, who had issued a preliminary injunction to halt the layoffs and questioned the broader plan. The decision came with dissent from the three liberal justices, who expressed concerns over the legality of the administration's actions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for herself and Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, criticized the court's decision, stating, "When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it." The layoffs, which have been on hold since March, are part of President Trump's broader agenda to dismantle the Education Department, fulfilling a major campaign promise.

The case involves two consolidated lawsuits, including one filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers, and other education groups. They argue that the layoffs would leave the department unable to fulfill its congressional duties, such as supporting special education and enforcing civil rights laws. Another lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general.

The Supreme Court's decision allows the Trump administration to continue its efforts to restructure the federal workforce under the "Department of Government Efficiency" initiative, despite concerns over the legality of such actions without congressional approval. The court emphasized that it was not ruling on the legality of any specific agency reorganization plans.

Justice Jackson, in her dissent, highlighted concerns over the use of the "shadow docket," a term for the court's handling of emergency applications and summary decisions. She warned that the court's stay could enable an unprecedented restructuring of the federal government without legislative approval, potentially undermining the traditional deference owed to district courts.

Dan Caplis