People are gathering for a rally at the Save Civil Service, hosting the US Government Federation (AFGE) on February 11, on the day when President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for Dodge to reduce federal jobs. The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that these cuts may continue. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
The US Supreme Court at the end of Tuesday raised a lower court order that had blocked President Donald Trump’s attempts and his Doge service to restructure the federal government.
Unions, defenders and local authorities, who filed a lawsuit to block the abbreviations, said the president exceeded his powers with the enforcement order by moving to dismantle the Federal Government without approval of the congress.
A US District Court Judge in Northern California agreed and issued a preliminary order to suspend the enforcement order while the case was heard. The 9th Court of Appeal of the United States upheld this decision.
But the White House is pressing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s executive order does not restructure the government, but simply called for a reduction in the power that he believes is within the President’s power.
The Supreme Court agreed with an order on a page on Tuesday, stating that the government would probably prevail on its claim and the order should be remained until the case continues.
In the sharp disagreement on 15 pages, justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the District Court judge had determined that the administration plan would not only reduce jobs, but “essentially restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be left while the case was heard, she writes.
“But this temporary, practical, reducing harmful storage of the status quo was not a coincidence of the demonstrated enthusiasm of this court for being the green lighting of the legitimate dubious actions of this president in an emergency,” she wrote.
“Below this case is about whether this action is a structural repair, which usurped the prerogatives of creating congress policies – and it is difficult to imagine to resolve this issue in some meaningful way after these changes occur,” she writes. “Still, for some reason, this court considers it good to intervene now and release the president’s destructive ball at the beginning of this lawsuit.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a brief agreement said she had agreed with Jackson that the president did not have the authority to process the government without congress approval. But she said that the execution order and the implementation note of the Management and Budget Office and the Staff Management Office require the changes to “comply with the applicable legislation” and the lower courts to determine if they are.
A White House spokesman called the decision “another final victory” for the Trump administration.
“This clearly denounces the prolonged attacks on the constitutionally authorized executive powers of the President by left -wing judges trying to prevent the president from achieving government effectiveness in the federal government,” spokesman Harrison Fields said in a written statement.
But unions, defenders and political leaders say the decision undermines the value of federal officials, threatens the work of federal services and can even endanger US citizens.
In a statement on Tuesday evening, the US Federation of Government Officers, together with the rest of the Union Coalition, Non -Profitan organizations and the municipalities, which brought the case against the administration, described the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy”.
The coalition said the decision had set “services to which the American people relies on serious danger.”
“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that the reorganization of governmental functions and the dismissal of federal workers massively undoubtedly without congress approval is not authorized by our constitution,” the statement said. “Although we are disappointed with this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect the critical public services that we rely on to be safe and healthy.”
For some reason, this court considers it is good to intervene now and release the president’s destructive ball at the beginning of this lawsuit.
– Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) said that as a high -federal workers’ country, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against the people and the economy of Maryland.”
“Today’s AFGE Supreme Court decision against Trump will strengthen President Trump in his mission to dismantle the Federal Government and threaten to raise the lives of countless civil servants who wake up every day to provide basic services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore says in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been fired by federal agencies under the Trump administration.
In a publication until X on Tuesday night, the American Wall Hoyer reporter (D-5th) writes that the Trump and Omb director Russell Water continues to “defile and trauma to the patriots serving our nation, to reorganize the federal government.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that the federal officials, their families and the livelihood and the vital services they provide to the American people do not concern the Trump administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”
US representative Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in publication X that the decision “will give Trump’s destructive crew more terrible ideas for dismissing critical federal workers”, citing the dismissal of the national meteorological service and the national administration of the ocean and the atmosphere that help the government and the atmosphere that help the government
American Senator Chris Van Holen (D-MD.) Prothegly added that abbreviations can also put Americans at risk by “reducing basic public services” such as food and social security inspections.
“As justice Jackson put it in his disagreement,” it was the wrong decision at the wrong time, given what this court knows about what actually happens in place, “says Van Holen in the article. “It is right. The court’s decision to allow this damage to be inflicted before the merits of the merits shows how much they are detached from the reality of the moment.”
Van Holen said the administration’s plan “is not about efficiency, but to arrange the government only to take advantage of the rich and powerful special interests.”
“We have not struggled in Congress, in the courts and in our communities to defend the specialized civil servants who go to work on behalf of the American people every day,” he said.
Support: You do our job possible
The enforcement order on February 11 directed federal agencies to prepare “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Ministry of Government-the service of the Doce, which was managed at that time by billionaire Elon Musk-to develop a plan to reduce the amount of labor. Military officials were released, but almost every other federal agency was affected.
The order was quickly challenged in court by trade unions, taxpayers and good government groups and half a dozen local authorities: Harris, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr., Washington and San Francisco, California; and cities in Chicago, Baltimore and Santa Rosa, California.
They claim that the objectives of the enforcement order are far beyond the president’s powers to reduce the amount of agencies. According to the plan of the voids, they have argued before the Supreme Court, “the functions in the federal government will be removed, the agencies will be radically reduced by what Congress is allowed, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal officers will lose their jobs.”
“There will be no way to unfold this egg: if the courts ultimately believe that the president has exceeded his authority and is intruded on that of Congress, there will be virtually no way to return to time to restore these agencies, functions and services,” said their court file.
This was voiced by Jackson, who said the District Court judge was in the best position to determine whether the president’s order consists of “minor reductions in the workforce” or whether it was a massive reorganization that exceeds the executive.
“With the scarce justification, the majority allows the immediate and potentially devastating aggravation of one branch (executive branch) at the expense of another (congress) and again leaves people to pay the price for their reckless definitions of an emergency report,” she wrote.