Executive Order 14210
In February earlier this year, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14210, which called for a massive reduction in force and reorganizations across wide swaths of the federal government. The order also imposed hiring restrictions, requiring agencies to get approval from the Department of Government Efficiency before making new hires, except in law enforcement and immigration-related roles.
The Initial Legal Challenge and Preliminary Injunction
The order quickly faced legal backlash as a coalition of public-sector unions, non-profits, and local governments sued in federal courts. They argued that the president had overstepped his authority, claiming that the order effectively dismantled entire agencies without Congressional approval, violating the separation of powers set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction to pause the administration’s plan. She ruled that the executive branch could not make such sweeping changes without legislative approval and cooperation, particularly when the changes affect the basic structure of government agencies.
The Supreme Court Steps In
After the Ninth Circuit declined to block the injunction, the Trump administration took the fight to the Supreme Court. It argued that the president has long-standing authority to make personnel decisions within the executive branch and that the unions and local governments lacked standing to sue in federal court. The administration also claimed that challenges should be handled by administrative bodies like the Merit Systems Protection Board, not the courts.
The coalition of plaintiffs pushed back, saying the injunction merely preserved the status quo and prevented irreversible harm. They argued that the administration had not shown any urgent harm, justifying a stay.
Despite this, the Supreme Court sided with the administration. In a brief two-paragraph order, the justices stated that the government was likely to win its case and that the legal standards for issuing a stay were met. Importantly, the Court emphasized that this is not a final ruling; it’s a pause on the injunction, not a full green light for the plan’s legality.
Justice Sotomayor’s Take
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately to stress that the Court wasn’t ruling on whether the proposed agency restructurings themselves are legal. She pointed out that the executive order only calls for planning reductions in force “consistent with applicable law,” and the actual plans have yet to be reviewed by the courts.
What’s Next?
For now, the Trump administration can proceed with its planning for cuts across a broad range of agencies, including the Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and others, as well as agencies like the EPA, SBA, and Social Security Administration. However, the fight over whether these plans violate constitutional and statutory limits on executive power is far from over.
A separate legal challenge involving layoffs at the Department of Education is still pending before the Court, setting the stage for more legal battles in the months ahead.
