Federal government layoffs: Supreme Court sides with Trump for now
By: Maureen Groppe (USA TODAY)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Maureen GroppeUSA TODAYHear this story
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on July 8 lifted a federal judge's order pausing the Trump administration's large-scale staffing cuts and agency restructuring, boosting the president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government.
In an unsigned and brief opininon, the justices said they are not ruling on the legality of a specific reorganization plan.
But, the court said, the district judge was wrong to stop the administration from moving ahead with changes to agencies.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, calling it the "wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground."
"Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," Jackson wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that while she agrees with Jackson that any changes must comply with previous congressional directives, Trump's executive order instructed agencies to follow the law.
"The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law," she wrote.
Sotomayor said the district judge can now consider whether that's happening.
The mass federal layoffs were challenged by a group of unions, non-profits and local governments who argued the administration can't make such sweeping changes without Congress.
In a joint statement, the coalition said the court's decision "has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy." The groups vowed to keep fighting.
If the administration is allowed to plow forward while courts are weighing in, they've argued, it will be impossible to restore the agencies even if their challenge is ultimately successful.
"There will be no way to unscramble that egg," lawyers for the unions and other challengers had told the Supreme Court.
The administration argued President Donald Trump doesn't need "special permission" from Congress' to lay off thousands of federal employees. And it's not in the government's, or the taxpayer's interest, to have to wait for the litigation to play out before cutting the workforce, lawyers for the Justice Department said.
"Every day that the preliminary injunction remains in effect, a government-wide program to implement agency RIFs is being halted and delayed, maintaining a bloated and inefficient workforce while wasting countless taxpayer dollars," the Justice Department told the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco halted the layoffs, ruling on May 22 that the approximately 20 affected agencies won't be able to function as Congress intended.
For example, she said, Congress established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health but the administration wants to eliminate nearly all of its 222 employees.
And the Social Security Administration, which was also established by Congress, has struggled to respond to Social Security recipients since staff reductions began, wrote Illston, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
A divided three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed Illston's decision.
Two of the three judges − both of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents − said the administration's "unprecedented" attempt to restructure the federal government is so broad that it was difficult to fully capture the magnitude in their court order.
Writing for the majority, Judge William Fletcher also said the administration failed to provide "a single piece of evidence" for why it would suffer an irreparable injury if Trump can't immediately fire the workers.
Judge Consuelo Callahan, who was appointed by a Republican president, dissented. She wrote that the courts were interfering with Trump's "lawful conduct."
The administration has aggressively challenged the pauses federal judges are putting on the president's policies as they're being litigated.
Featured Weekly Ad
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
Time to cut the bloat and the deadweight.
When even Sotomayor tells Jackson she has no idea what she's talking about, it might be time for her to find a more suitable profession.