• The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to lift an injunction blocking federal workforce restructuring efforts.
• Lower courts ruled the administration lacks statutory authority for mass layoffs and agency reorganizations.
• The case raises key questions about presidential authority vs. congressional oversight in managing federal agencies.

The Trump administration has filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to lift an injunction that blocks its efforts to restructure the federal workforce through mass terminations and agency reorganization. The filing, submitted Monday, argues that the lower court’s decision unlawfully restricts the president’s constitutional authority to manage executive branch personnel and reshape federal agencies.

The case revolves around a February 11 executive order issued by President Donald Trump, titled Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative. The order sought to “eliminate waste” and overhaul federal bureaucracy by initiating large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), commonly referred to as mass layoffs. Plaintiffs, including federal employee unions, have challenged the order, alleging it violates separation of powers principles and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Lower Court Rulings Stall Restructuring Plans

The dispute began in May when U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted a temporary restraining order halting the Trump administration’s plans. She later issued a preliminary injunction, concluding that the three agencies leading the restructuring efforts—the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—lacked the statutory authority to execute such large-scale actions.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

“In sum, no statute gives OPM, OMB, or DOGE the authority to direct other federal agencies to engage in large-scale terminations, restructuring, or elimination of itself,” Illston wrote in her May order.

Her ruling was upheld by a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in a 2-1 vote, denied the government’s request to stay the injunction. The appellate court echoed the district court’s findings, stating, “DOGE has no statutory authority whatsoever. We therefore agree with the district court that these organizations’ actions…were ultra vires (beyond legal authority).”

Trump Administration Pushes Back

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, criticized Illston’s ruling in the Supreme Court filing, arguing it undermines the president’s constitutional authority to oversee executive branch personnel.

“The district court’s injunction violates bedrock principles,” Sauer wrote, adding that the Constitution “does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing.” He further argued that the president does not need explicit authorization from Congress to exercise his executive powers.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The administration also asserted that Trump’s directive is lawful under existing statutes, claiming it provides “general direction and guidance” to agencies to implement RIFs within legal limits.

Legal and Ethical Implications

The case raises significant questions about the balance of power between the branches of government. While the executive branch argues that the president has inherent authority to manage federal personnel, the judiciary has underscored Congress’s role in granting statutory authority to federal agencies.

The plaintiffs’ 115-page complaint asserts that Trump’s executive order unconstitutionally encroaches on legislative authority, violating the separation of powers doctrine. It also accuses the administration of sidestepping procedural safeguards under the APA, which governs federal agency actions.

“Such action is far outside the bounds of any authority that Congress vested in OPM or OMB,” Illston wrote in her May order.

Next Steps in the Case

Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees emergency petitions from the 9th Circuit, has ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the administration’s filing by June 9, 2025. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to lift the injunction could have far-reaching implications for federal employees and the broader structure of the executive branch.

Share Your Thoughts

What do you think about the legal battle over federal workforce restructuring? Share your thoughts in the comments below and let us know how this case might impact you or your community.

Follow The Dupree Report On WhatsApp for real-time law and justice updates.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10