Trump administration asks Supreme Court to let it move forward with mass layoffs of federal workforce

Washington — President Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow it to move forward with its plans to lay off thousands of federal workers at nearly two dozen agencies while a legal battle over the president’s plans to drastically cut the size of the government moves forward.

The Justice Department’s request for emergency relief is the second in which it has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the ongoing dispute over its efforts to execute reductions-in-force, or layoffs, across the executive branch. The administration initially asked the Supreme Court to halt a two-week temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, but withdrew its request after she granted longer relief last month.

That preliminary injunction issued by Illston prevented the Trump administration from implementing planned reductions-in-force, placing employees on administrative leave and proceeding with job cuts that are already in motion.

The Justice Department’s latest request for the Supreme Court’s intervention comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined last week to halt Illston’s order, which would have allowed the administration to resume its efforts to sharply scale down the size of the federal workforce.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a filing that the district court’s order is “flawed” and rests on an “indefensible premise,” namely that the president needs authorization from Congress to oversee personnel decisions within the executive branch.

“It interferes with the Executive Branch’s internal operations and unquestioned legal authority to plan and carry out RIFs, and does so on a government-wide scale,” he wrote. “More concretely, the injunction has brought to a halt numerous in-progress RIFs at more than a dozen federal agencies, sowing confusion about what RIF-related steps agencies may take and compelling the government to retain — at taxpayer expense — thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service the agencies deem not to be in the government and public interest.”

Mr. Trump began taking steps to shrink the government shortly after he returned to the White House. The president created DOGE, a cost-cutting task force that was led by Elon Musk, and his administration began working to dismantle agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, though they have been met with court challenges.

In February, Mr. Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to make plans to initiate “large-scale” reductions-in-force. On the heels of the president’s directive, the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management of Budget issued a memo directing agencies to submit plans for two phases of job cuts.

Several department heads began executing their workforce cuts earlier this year, with thousands of federal employees losing their jobs. Other federal entities are planning to make significant reductions in the coming weeks and months.

The reductions-in-force are separate from the mass terminations of probationary workers, who generally were in their positions for one or two years. But those firings, which took place in February, have also been the focus of lawsuits.

In response to Mr. Trump’s executive order, labor unions, nonprofit groups and local governments sued nearly every federal agency to block the layoffs, arguing that the executive order exceeded the president’s authority and violated the separation of powers.

A federal district judge in San Francisco agreed to issue a temporary restraining order, and she extended that relief with a preliminary injunction. Illston’s order covers 21 federal agencies and DOGE, and prevents them from implementing reductions-in-force, placing employees on administrative leave and proceeding with job cuts that are already in motion.

The judge also barred agencies from implementing any orders by DOGE to cut programs or staff in connection with Mr. Trump’s February executive order. The agencies affected include the Departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs, as well as AmeriCorps and the Social Security Administration, among others.

In a 51-page ruling, Illston wrote that presidents do have the authority to seek changes to federal agencies, and nine presidents have over the last century sought to reorganize the executive branch — but only after obtaining approval from Congress.

“Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed,” the judge said. “But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that — by statute — they must carry out. Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’s mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.”

The Justice Department asked the 9th Circuit to lift Illston’s injunction, and in a divided 2-1 decision, it refused to do so.

“The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the president’s supervisory powers under the Constitution,” the appeals court wrote. “The president enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies.”