Supreme Court lifts injunction, allows Trump workforce cuts to proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a stay blocking a preliminary injunction issued by a San Francisco district judge that prevented Trump administration agencies from ordering large-scale firings and layoffs without congressional approval.

The court's 8-1 decision, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, overturned a ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Y. Illston, which had been upheld by a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on May 30.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a stay in early June. The Supreme Court granted it on Tuesday afternoon.

"Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful -- and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied -- we grant the application," the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion. Trump et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO et al., 24A1174 (S. Ct., filed June 2, 2025).

The ruling is the latest court victory for President Donald Trump and his executive order to slash the federal workforce by instituting significant "reductions in force," and a loss for San Francisco-based Altshuler Berzon LLP - which has sued to protect employees in two complaints.

Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion stating that details of the layoff plan could be left for Illston to address. "The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law," she wrote.

Jackson described the decision as "hubristic and senseless."

"At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress's policymaking prerogatives -- and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened," she wrote.

"Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," Jackson added.

The ruling marks the second time a preliminary injunction by a San Francisco district judge, appointed by President Bill Clinton, has been put on hold by the Supreme Court. In April, the court ruled 7-2 to pause an order by Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup to reinstate 16,000 probationary employees fired by federal agencies.

That case is ongoing, with motions for summary judgment pending for a hearing in August. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO et al. v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management et al., 25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 19, 2025).

Altshuler Berzon attorney Stacey M. Leyton, who represented the unions, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The U.S. Department of Justice also could not be reached. In his reply brief, Sauer wrote that a stay of Illston's injunction was urgently needed.

"Agencies are being prevented (and have been since the district court issued its temporary restraining order a month ago) from taking needed steps to make the federal government and workforce more efficient," he wrote. "Absent intervention from this Court, that intolerable state of affairs promises to endure for months."

Leyton, in her brief, urged the Supreme Court to slow down Trump's "breakneck reorganization of the federal government" before too much damage is done.

"There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services," she wrote.