People gather at the rally to “preserve the civil service”, organized by the American Government Federation (AFG) on 11 February, the day President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for Doge to reduce the federal jobs. The Supreme Court said Tuesday that these reductions could now take place. (Kent Nishimura Photo/Getty Images)
The US Supreme Court annulled lower court orders late Tuesday, blocked by President Donald Trump and his Doge’s service attempts to reorganize the federal government.
Trade unions, supporters and local authorities who went to the court to block reductions argued that the president had exceeded his authority by executive order to dismantle the federal government without the approval of Congress.
The US District Court Judge agreed and issued a preliminary order to suspend the executive order before the case was heard. The 9th US District Court of Appeal supported the decision.
However, the White House pressed an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that Trump’s executive order did not rearrange the government, but only urged the power to reduce the power, which she said was the power of the president.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed on a single page ruling, saying that the Government would probably prevail on its claim and that the order should be held until the case was held.
In honest 15 -page disagreements, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge found that the administration plan would not only reduce jobs, but also “restructuring” the federal government. He adopted a “reasonable decision” that the order should be held until the case was heard, she wrote.
“However, that temporary, practical, harm-reducing status quo preservation did not correspond to the enthusiasm proved by this court that this legally questionable actions are legally questionable in the emergency posture,” she wrote.
“At the bottom, this case is related to whether this action means structural overhaul, which kidnapped the prerogative of the Congressor policy -making – and it is difficult to imagine this question in any meaningful way after these changes have occurred,” she wrote. “However, for some reason, this court believes that it is now necessary to get involved and release the president’s grabbing ball at the beginning of this litigation.”
Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, briefly agreed, said she had agreed to Jackson that the president had no authority to redevelop the government without the approval of Congress. However, she said the executive order and the implementation of a memorandum from the Management and Budget Service and Personnel Management requires that the amendments “comply with applicable laws” and lower courts need to determine whether they are.
The White House spokesman called the decision “another final victory” to Trump’s administration.
“Left judges who are trying to prevent the President to achieve the government’s effectiveness throughout the federal government, who are trying to prevent the president’s constitutionally authorized executive power, obviously reject permanent attacks,” Harrison Fields said in a written statement.
However, trade unions, proponents and political leaders say the decision is damaging to the value of federal employees, threatens the functioning of federal services and can even endanger American citizens.
On Tuesday night, in a statement, the American Government Federation, along with the remaining union coalitions, non -profit organizations and municipalities, filed a lawsuit against the administration, and decided to the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”
The coalition stated that the decision provided “services that American people rely on serious danger”.
“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that the reorganization of government functions and the default of federal employees accidentally prevents our Constitution,” the report states. “Although we are disappointed with this decision, we will continue to fight with the name of the communities we represent, and we say that this case will protect critical public services that we trust to stay safe and healthy.”
For some reason, this court considers that he has been involved now and will release the presidential dismantling ball at the beginning of this litigation.
– Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal employees, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against the people and the economy of Maryland.”
“Today’s Supreme Court decision on AFGE against Trump will encourage the president to dismantle the federal government in his mission and threaten to ruin many civil servants who wake up every day, bringing life to the essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore wrote in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents had already been dismissed from federal agencies under Trump’s administration.
On Tuesday night, the X spokesman Steny Hoyer (D-5) wrote that short and omb director Russell Vubt continues to “naked and traumatized patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally in redevelopment of the Federal Government.”
“Today, the Supreme Court’s decision shows that federal employees, their family and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide for the American people are not worrying to Trump’s administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal staff against these attacks.”
US spokesman Jamie Raskin (D-8) “X Post” said the ruling would “give a short destroying crew more terrible ideas for the dismissal of critical federal employees,” indicating dismissals at the National Weather Service and the National Ocean and atmosphere Administration to report state and local agency.
US Senior Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) Added that forgives could also endanger Americans by “destroying essential public services” such as food checks and social security.
“As Judge Jackson said about it, ‘it was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, given what this court knows about what was really happening on the spot,” Van Hollen said. “She is right. The judgment of the court to allow this damage to be done before making a decision on merit, showing what they are distancing from the reality of the moment.”
Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “is not about efficiency and that the government’s application is only beneficial to rich and powerful special interests.”
“We do not do the fighting Congress, the courts and our communities to defend the dedicated civil servants who go to work every day in the name of the American people,” he said.
Support: You do our job
Executive Order February 11 The Executive Order instructed the federal agencies to submit a “high-scale decrease” and work with the Government Efficiency Department-Doge Service, which at that time ruled by billionaire Elon Musk-to-Make a plan to reduce the amount of workforce. Military staff was not subject to the applied, but practically every other federal agency was done.
The order was quickly challenged by trade unions, taxpayers and good government groups, and fifty municipalities: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr County, Washington and San Francisco City and County, California; And the cities of Chicago, Baltimore and Santa Rosa, California.
They argued that the objectives of the executive order were significantly exceeded by the president’s powers to reduce the amount of agencies. According to the Doge plan, they approved the Supreme Court: “The functions of the Federal Government will be abolished, the agencies will be radically reduced from what the congress will be authorized, the critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”
“There will be no way to dispel that egg: if the courts eventually hold the president to go beyond their authority and intervene in Congress, because the practical thing will not be able to return to time to restore those agencies, functions and services,” the application said.
This was repeated by Jackson, who stated that the district court judge had the best opportunity to determine whether the presidential order was “minor labor reduction” or whether it was a huge redevelopment that turned the executive.
“On the basis of justification, most allow direct and potentially devastating the aggravation of one branch (executive) at the expense of another (congress), and once again leave people to pay the price for reckless emergency dishes,” she wrote.