WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump July 8, 2025, lifting a nationwide injunction that had blocked his administration’s plans for sweeping federal workforce reductions.
In an unsigned order delivered through the Court’s emergency docket, the justices cleared the way for agencies to proceed with mass layoffs. The decision in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, No. 24A1174, reversed lower court rulings that had found the President likely exceeded his constitutional authority.
Table of Contents
Merit System Established in 1883 Faces Fundamental Change
The ruling permits Trump to implement Executive Orders 14171 and 14210 while legal challenges continue. These orders revive what was previously called “Schedule F” — now renamed “Schedule Policy/Career” — potentially affecting up to 50,000 federal positions according to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint.
Executive Order 14171, signed January 20, 2025, creates a new employment category for federal workers in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” positions. These employees would lose traditional civil service protections established by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883.
Executive Order 14210, issued February 11, established the Department of Government Efficiency Workforce Optimization Initiative. The order directs agencies to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law” to eliminate “waste, bloat, and insularity.”
Lower Courts Had Blocked the Administration’s Plans
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a nationwide preliminary injunction May 22, 2025, blocking enforcement of the executive orders. She found that massive staff reductions would “functionally render federal agencies unable to perform their duties as mandated by Congress.”
Judge Illston concluded that “a large-scale reorganization of the executive branch requires a partnership with Congress, not unilateral presidential action.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this reasoning May 30, denying the administration’s emergency request. Both courts found the President likely lacked constitutional authority for such sweeping changes without Congressional approval.
The administration filed its emergency application with the Supreme Court on June 2, 2025.
Justices Reveal Deep Division Over Executive Power
The Supreme Court’s brief order stated the government was “likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied.”
The majority carefully noted they expressed “no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurrence, agreeing with the stay only because EO 14210 directs agencies to formulate plans “consistent with applicable law.” She wrote that courts have “no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law” until specific agency plans emerge.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a forceful dissent, documenting how Presidents between 1932 and 1984 sought Congressional authorization through time-limited Reorganization Acts when restructuring government.
“The Trump administration has sharply departed from that settled practice,” Jackson wrote. She criticized the majority for issuing its ruling from a “lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence.”
Jackson warned the Court’s action authorizes “harmful upheaval” and the potential “dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it.”
Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 Takes Shape
The executive orders directly implement elements from Project 2025, a 927-page Heritage Foundation plan with the stated goal of dismantling what it calls the “Administrative State.”
The project specifically calls for using Schedule F to “purge the federal bureaucracy of career experts and replace them with up to 50,000 political loyalists.”
Key changes in the 2025 version make the policy more expansive and resistant to legal challenges:
- The Office of Personnel Management now recommends reclassifications to the President rather than making final decisions
- The definition of affected employees has been broadened
- The process appears designed to shield decisions from judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act
President Trump first attempted this restructuring in October 2020 with Executive Order 13957, creating the original “Schedule F.” President Biden rescinded that order upon taking office in January 2021.
Department of Veterans Affairs Acts First
The Department of Veterans Affairs announced August 6, 2025, it was terminating collective bargaining agreements for most of its employees, directly citing the President’s executive order that had been previously enjoined by lower courts.
Court documents reveal other agencies preparing similar actions. The Department of Education faces approximately 50 percent workforce reduction according to McMahon v. New York, a separate case where the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay July 14 in a 6-3 decision.
Multiple Legal Challenges Continue
Federal employee unions pursue litigation across multiple jurisdictions:
National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-00170)
- Challenges Executive Order 14171
- Judge Jia M. Cobb stayed the case June 27 pending issuance of a final OPM rule
AFGE v. Trump (N.D. Cal., No. 3:25-cv-3698)
- Continues despite Supreme Court stay
- Plaintiffs now seek discovery of specific agency RIF plans
McMahon v. New York (D. Mass.)
- Twenty states and D.C. challenge Department of Education RIF
- Supreme Court granted stay of preliminary injunction July 14
Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence preserves space for these targeted challenges, noting the district court remains “free to consider those questions in the first instance.”
Congress Weighs Legislative Response
The Saving the Civil Service Act (H.R. 1002 / S. 399) would amend the Civil Service Reform Act to explicitly prohibit reclassifying career employees into a new excepted service schedule. The bill’s prospects depend on political dynamics in Congress.
Historical precedent exists for Congressional intervention. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 created the current framework, establishing the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board to handle employee appeals.
Constitutional Arguments Frame the Dispute
The administration grounds its authority in Article II of the Constitution, which states “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
The Solicitor General argues the President does not require “explicit statutory authorization from Congress to exercise his core Article II authority” over internal personnel decisions. This includes the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Opponents cite Article I, granting Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers of government. They argue this includes establishing and structuring federal departments and agencies.
Justice Jackson’s dissent emphasized the “long and consistent history of Reorganization Acts passed by Congress between 1932 and 1984,” demonstrating “a shared understanding across both branches of government that such power is not inherent in the presidency but must be granted by Congress.”
Government Performance Research Shows Risks
The Brookings Institution analyzed potential impacts, warning that converting up to 50,000 career civil servants to political appointee status would cause a massive “brain drain.”
Research cited by Brookings shows “politicization is negatively related to government effectiveness and positively related to corruption.” More politicized agencies are “less responsive to both the public and to Congress,” with slower responses to Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional inquiries.
The policy creates what experts call a “chilling effect” among remaining workforce members. Career employees may become hesitant to provide objective, evidence-based advice that contradicts the administration’s political agenda.
Emergency Docket Use Draws Scrutiny
The Supreme Court’s decision to resolve this case through its emergency docket rather than full briefing and argument has drawn criticism. These expedited rulings often come in unsigned orders with minimal explanation.
Critics note the Court increasingly uses this “shadow docket” for consequential policy questions rather than true emergencies requiring immediate action.
142 Years of Merit-Based Civil Service at Stake
The current conflict represents the most significant challenge to the merit-based civil service since the Pendleton Act replaced the spoils system in 1883. That law established competitive exams and qualifications-based hiring after decades of corruption and inefficiency.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 strengthened these protections, creating due process rights and protections against arbitrary or politically motivated adverse actions.
If Schedule Policy/Career is fully implemented, tens of thousands of career positions could convert to at-will employment. Employees would lose appeal rights, protection from political retaliation, and job security based on performance rather than political loyalty.
Similar disruptions in other government enforcement areas have already affected citizens, as seen with immigration enforcement actions impacting families.
The Path Forward Remains Uncertain
While the Supreme Court’s emergency ruling allows broad planning to continue, individual agency reduction plans remain vulnerable to legal challenge. Each must comply with applicable statutes and regulations governing specific agencies.
The administration frames these actions as eliminating inefficiency and creating accountability. Critics see a return to the 19th-century spoils system Congress explicitly rejected 142 years ago.
The coming months will determine whether the merit-based civil service survives this constitutional confrontation. Federal workers await the outcome as Trump brings emergency appeal over mass firings to Supreme Court — and the justices have given him the authority to proceed while the deeper questions remain unresolved.
