The decision pauses a previous injunction from U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, who had temporarily blocked the layoffs in a ruling that criticized the plan as potentially crippling the department. Judge Joun’s initial order, issued in Boston, warned that the layoffs would "likely cripple the department," undermining its ability to fulfill its mission of supporting students, educators, and civil rights protections in education. However, with the Supreme Court’s intervention, the administration can now move forward with its plans to significantly reduce the size and scope of the Education Department.
While the Court did not provide a detailed explanation for its emergency ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion, criticized the decision as an endorsement of potentially unlawful actions by the administration. "When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it," wrote Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.
In a statement following the decision, Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying it reaffirmed the President’s authority to restructure federal agencies as he sees fit.
“Today, the Supreme Court confirmed what we already know: The President of the United States, as head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority over staffing, agency organization, and operations,” McMahon said.
McMahon's statement echoed the administration’s long-standing argument that downsizing the Education Department is essential to meeting Trump’s campaign promise of reducing the size of the federal government. For proponents of the plan, the decision marks a crucial victory in Trump’s broader efforts to limit the role of federal agencies in higher education and K-12 policy.
However, advocacy groups and education leaders are not backing down. The Massachusetts cities and education groups that filed lawsuits against the plan argue that the layoffs and the proposed cuts would prevent the Education Department from carrying out critical functions—such as supporting special education, distributing financial aid, and ensuring access to civil rights protections in education.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs, criticized the ruling, emphasizing the broader implications for public education.
“Without offering a clear explanation, the Supreme Court has dealt a devastating blow to the nation’s commitment to public education,” Perryman said. “Once again, the Court has acted behind closed doors, overturning lower court decisions without allowing for full public debate.”
For institutions of higher education, the ruling raises concerns about the future of federal funding and support for students. The Education Department plays a pivotal role in managing Title IV financial aid programs, overseeing student loans, and ensuring that civil rights protections are upheld in educational settings.
In addition to the layoffs, the Trump administration has also faced lawsuits from more than 20 states over its decision to freeze billions of dollars in education funding, impacting after-school programs, summer initiatives, and other services crucial to students from low-income backgrounds. These funding cuts have added to concerns that the administration’s efforts to reduce the Education Department’s footprint could undermine long-standing initiatives that support access to education, particularly for historically underserved communities.
As of March, the Education Department employees targeted for layoffs have been on paid leave, with their future uncertain. A union representing some of the affected workers, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, confirmed that while Judge Joun’s injunction had temporarily halted the layoffs, none of the workers had been allowed to return to work.
The layoffs were initially set to take place in early June, but with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the employees now face the likelihood of permanent termination. The Department has indicated that it plans to “assess how to reintegrate” affected employees, asking them to update their employment status. However, the uncertainty surrounding these workers’ futures only adds to the tension surrounding the administration’s proposed changes.
The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits challenging Trump’s education plan: one filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts, and another brought by a coalition of 21 Democratic state attorneys general. Both lawsuits argue that the restructuring of the Education Department would render it unable to fulfill its mandated responsibilities, particularly in areas of civil rights enforcement, special education support, and financial aid distribution.
For many education advocates, the ruling is seen as part of a broader trend in which the federal government’s role in supporting public education is increasingly diminished. As the case moves forward, it is expected to have significant implications for how federal agencies are structured and how the government supports educational opportunities for all students, especially those from marginalized communities.
