On May 16, 2025, the Trump administration made a formal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to lift an injunction halting widespread reductions in the federal workforce.
The move follows a ruling by a federal judge in San Francisco that temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order aimed at streamlining federal agencies by cutting thousands of jobs. The administration argues the layoffs are critical to reducing government spending and improving operational efficiency.
This latest legal battle underscores a broader struggle over executive power and how much authority a president has to unilaterally restructure federal agencies. It also sets up a significant constitutional test, with potential consequences for how future presidents handle civil service reforms and government downsizing.
Background on the Executive Order
In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing more than 20 federal agencies to initiate reductions in force (RIFs), a formal process for laying off federal employees.
The plan was part of a broader initiative by the Trump administration to shrink the federal government, which the former president has repeatedly described as bloated and inefficient.
The order targeted employees at the Departments of State, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and the Social Security Administration, among others. According to administration officials, the goal was to streamline government services, eliminate redundancy, and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
However, this effort faced immediate legal pushback. Several unions representing federal workers—such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)—joined with city governments from San Francisco, Chicago, and Baltimore in challenging the order.
They argued that the layoffs violated federal labor laws, lacked proper oversight, and would severely harm critical services.
Federal Court Blocks Implementation
On May 9, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary restraining order preventing the administration from carrying out the RIFs. In her ruling, Judge Illston expressed concern over the lack of Congressional approval for such large-scale changes and noted that the executive order could disrupt vital government functions.
She cited potential consequences including delays in processing Social Security benefits, diminished disaster response capabilities by FEMA, and interruption of food assistance programs managed by the Department of Agriculture.
“The executive order as written appears to exceed the bounds of unilateral executive action,” Judge Illston wrote. “Federal employees have rights under existing laws, and broad workforce changes require legislative consideration.”
Trump Administration’s Supreme Court Appeal
In response, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court on May 16. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the district court’s injunction “disrupts the President’s constitutional authority to manage the executive branch.”
The appeal requests that the Court immediately lift the injunction and allow the administration to proceed with the layoffs.
According to the administration, the Constitution provides the executive branch with the inherent authority to oversee the internal management of federal departments, including staffing decisions. Officials maintain that the layoffs are necessary to reduce inefficiencies and ensure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly.
“The judiciary should not micromanage executive branch decisions regarding personnel,” Sauer wrote in the filing. “The Constitution vests these powers in the presidency, and this Court should uphold that framework.”
Opposition Arguments
Opponents of the executive order argue that the layoffs are not only unlawful but also dangerous. Labor unions say the proposed job cuts violate collective bargaining agreements and procedural requirements under the Civil Service Reform Act. Additionally, several Democratic-led cities that joined the lawsuit fear the layoffs will disproportionately impact underserved communities.
“The government cannot simply eliminate positions en masse without due process,” said Everett Kelley, president of the AFGE. “These are real people doing essential work—processing veterans’ claims, inspecting food supplies, and keeping our borders safe.”
Public interest groups have also expressed concern about the precedent such an executive order could set. They warn that if the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it could pave the way for unchecked executive control over civil service employment, bypassing Congress and administrative review.
Implications for Separation of Powers
This case could become a landmark decision on the limits of presidential authority. Legal scholars are closely watching how the Court interprets the separation of powers—particularly whether a president can sidestep Congress when reorganizing the federal workforce.
A ruling in favor of the administration would reinforce a broad interpretation of executive power, potentially giving future presidents more freedom to make sweeping changes to federal agencies. A decision upholding the injunction, on the other hand, could reaffirm the need for legislative involvement in significant personnel decisions.
According to constitutional law professor Leah Litman, “This case tests whether the checks and balances envisioned by the framers are still functioning in the administrative state. The stakes are high.”
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will take up the case or how quickly it will decide on the emergency appeal. If the Court does lift the injunction, the administration could begin implementing layoffs within days. If the Court declines to intervene, the issue will return to the lower courts for a full trial on the merits.
Until then, the jobs of thousands of federal workers remain in limbo, and the future of civil service reform hangs in the balance.
For more information U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov
Disclaimer – Our team has carefully fact-checked this article to make sure it’s accurate and free from any misinformation. We’re dedicated to keeping our content honest and reliable for our readers.