Sotomayor joins majority in Supreme Court order allowing Trump’s federal workforce cuts; Jackson stands alone in dissent.

Supreme Court Order Reveals Liberal Divide

The Supreme Court has issued a significant order clearing the way for President Donald Trump’s executive branch to proceed with large-scale reductions in the federal workforce, marking a rare split between the court’s liberal justices. The 8-1 decision, handed down Tuesday, underscores an evolving debate over presidential authority and the future of government employment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, authored a brief concurrence supporting the majority, emphasizing that Trump’s executive order specifically instructed agencies to plan reductions “consistent with applicable law.” Sotomayor wrote, “I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”

The Supreme Court’s two-page order affirmed that the executive order, signed by Trump in February, is likely lawful in requiring federal agencies to plan for workforce reductions. The order clarified that the court was not addressing the legality of any specific job cuts at this stage.

Jackson’s Dissent Emphasizes Congressional Power

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s most junior member and a Biden appointee, filed a 15-page dissent sharply critical of the Court’s action. Jackson supported a lower court’s decision to temporarily halt further reductions, warning that the majority’s move risked overriding congressional authority over federal employment and appropriations. “That temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” Jackson wrote.

Labor organizations and advocacy groups had filed suit to block Trump’s plan, alleging that the executive order to dramatically shrink the federal workforce infringed on Congress’s constitutional role to approve and fund government jobs. Thousands of government workers have already faced layoffs or accepted buyouts as part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign to make government “leaner and more efficient.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was issued on an emergency basis and is only temporary. The order will remain in effect as the Trump administration pursues its appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the ruling does not settle the legal questions surrounding workforce cuts, it allows the administration to move forward with its downsizing plans during the appeal process.

As the legal fight continues, the decision highlights not only divisions among the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc but also the ongoing tension between executive ambition and congressional oversight in shaping the federal government.