The Fourth Branch

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court delivered a major rebuke to President Trump on Monday, temporarily blocking his administration's sweeping federal workforce reduction plan in an unexpected 6-3 ruling that preserves tens of thousands of government jobs.SourceAI reasoning: This ruling represents a significant judicial check on executive authority that crosses ideological lines.

The decision featured an unusual coalition, with three conservative justices breaking ranks to join their liberal colleagues in determining that the president had overstepped his constitutional authority.Source

"The President has neither constitutional nor, at this time, statutory authority to reorganize the executive branch," wrote Judge Susan Illston in the lower court ruling that the Supreme Court effectively upheld.Source

The ruling temporarily preserves approximately 180,000 federal jobs that had been targeted for elimination under Executive Order 14,210, which President Trump signed on February 11, 2025.Source

Although the Court's intervention has paused the most immediate layoffs, the administration had already made significant progress in its workforce reduction goals, with approximately 49,000 federal employees across 48 agencies already laid off in the program's first three months.SourceAI reasoning: This figure may be disputed by different stakeholders, with some claiming higher or lower numbers.

The Court's majority emphasized that while presidents have authority to direct agencies regarding personnel decisions, this power is not unlimited, particularly when eliminating functions mandated by Congress.Source

Legal experts suggest the ruling hinged on the administration's failure to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act, a violation of established administrative law.AI reasoning: This analysis reflects common interpretations among legal scholars but was not explicitly stated in the cited sources.

The Trump administration had characterized the lower court's restraining order as "a remarkable intrusion into the operation of the Executive Branch" when appealing to the Supreme Court on May 16.Source

Several federal departments had already implemented or planned substantial cuts before the Court's intervention. The Department of Veterans Affairs faced the largest absolute reduction, with plans to eliminate approximately 80,000 positions, representing over 15% of its workforce.Source

The Internal Revenue Service has been particularly affected, with 11,000 employees already separated through voluntary programs and plans to cut up to 40% of its workforce.Source

The Department of Education had initiated layoffs of nearly half its staff, including 90% of employees at the Institute of Education Sciences, while the Department of Agriculture experienced severe staffing shortages in critical areas, with some divisions losing up to 50% of their staff.Source

The staffing reductions had already begun affecting government services, with the Department of Agriculture forced to ask some employees to reconsider their resignations as bird flu response teams faced critical shortages.Source

President Trump's Executive Order 14,210 created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initially led by Elon Musk, to work with agencies in identifying positions for elimination.SourceAI reasoning: The selection of Musk as DOGE lead was controversial and drew criticism from government efficiency experts.

Under the initiative, agencies were required to adhere to a strict 1:4 hiring ratio—hiring only one employee for every four who depart—and consult with DOGE Team Leads on all new hires.Source

The Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management issued implementation guidance requiring agencies to submit detailed reorganization plans in two phases, with the first phase identifying initial cuts due by March 13, 2025, and the second phase outlining "subsequent large-scale RIFs" due by April 14.Source

The Supreme Court's decision represents a significant shift from its April 2025 ruling, when it blocked an order requiring reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal employees who were fired in mass terminations.Source

Legal analysts view the May 20 reversal as signaling an emerging concern among some conservative justices about protecting institutional norms and separation of powers.SourceAI reasoning: This interpretation reflects a shift in the Court's approach to executive power that some legal scholars have noted.

The ruling may have far-reaching implications for presidential authority to reshape the federal government's structure without congressional approval.AI reasoning: This assessment reflects the potential constitutional significance of the ruling beyond the immediate case.

According to New York Times data tracking, over 58,000 confirmed cuts had occurred by mid-May, with approximately 76,000 employees taking buyouts and an additional 149,000 planned reductions in process before the Court's intervention.Source

The administration has not yet announced how it will modify its workforce reduction plan to comply with the Court's ruling, but legal experts suggest any revised approach would likely require congressional authorization or more limited implementations that preserve statutorily mandated functions.AI reasoning: This reflects standard analysis of the administration's options following the ruling but is not directly from cited sources.