Key Points
- The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to lift a lower court order blocking mass layoffs at the Department of Education.
- A federal judge previously halted plans to terminate over 2,100 employees, calling the move an illegal attempt to dismantle the agency.
- The case could determine whether a president can effectively eliminate federal departments without new legislation.
The Trump administration formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to lift a federal court order that blocks its attempt to lay off more than half the staff at the Department of Education. If successful, the move would clear the way for up to 2,100 employee terminations and a sweeping transfer of responsibilities to other agencies.
The court filing (PDF File) argues that the president has broad constitutional authority to reorganize the executive branch, including deciding which employees are necessary to carry out legal duties.
“The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed...” the administration wrote in its appeal. The request follows earlier denials from both a federal trial court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled the mass layoffs illegal.
This marks the 17th emergency appeal to the Supreme Court from the Trump administration since January, part of a broader strategy to reshape federal agencies through executive actions rather than new laws. It also marks the first major Supreme Court case centered on a president’s authority to effectively close an agency that Congress created.
Would you like to save this?
We'll email this article to you, so you can come back to it later!
Closing The Department Of Education
The administration’s plan began in March, when Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced a reduction-in-force order to eliminate roughly 2,100 of the department’s 4,100 staff. Two days later, President Trump signed an executive order instructing her to “take all necessary steps” to shut the department down, citing goals of reducing bureaucracy and improving efficiency.
The layoffs affected nearly every division, including Federal Student Aid, Civil Rights enforcement, and Title I grant distribution. Internal memos later revealed that entire offices responsible for managing FAFSA applications and loan servicing contracts were disbanded.
Trump told reporters that student loan servicing would shift to the Small Business Administration, while oversight of special education programs would move to the Department of Health and Human Services.
The response was swift. Twenty-one states, joined by school districts and labor unions, filed lawsuits to stop the closures, arguing that the federal government had a duty to carry out education programs established by Congress. Without staff, those mandates would go unmet.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction in May, writing that the administration’s actions showed a clear attempt “to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.” He ordered the reinstatement of terminated workers and froze any further staffing changes.
It's also become apparent that fulfilling Congressionally mandated work is becoming a challenge. The annual Report on the Condition of Education was published late this week, missing the June 1 deadline required by Congress, and was basically a summary - not a full report.
Legal Battle Heads To The Supreme Court
The Trump administration now seeks to overturn that ruling, asking the high court to weigh in on whether a president has the unilateral authority to reorganize or effectively eliminate executive agencies. If the Supreme Court grants the request, layoffs could resume almost immediately.
The Justice Department argues that the district court overstepped its authority by blocking the executive branch from managing its own personnel. The administration's argument is that decisions about staffing levels and internal structure should be left to the president, not federal judges.
But the states that are suing say the issue is not about management, it’s about legality. Congress created the Department of Education in 1979 and assigned it specific functions under federal law. Any effort to eliminate those responsibilities, they argue, must come through legislation.
Judge Joun appeared to agree. “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,” he wrote in his opinion. “This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself.”
What This Means For Students And Families
Beyond the legal fight, the real-world impact of this case touches millions of families and students. The Department of Education oversees more than $1.6 trillion in federal student loans, administers Pell Grants, monitors civil rights compliance in schools, and manages federal education funding across the country.
School districts in Massachusetts and other states say the layoffs already caused missed payments, delayed grant approvals, and a breakdown in compliance systems. Some have had to scale back special education and summer school programs due to uncertainty over federal aid.
If the Supreme Court allows the cuts to go forward, many of those services could face long-term disruption. If the court blocks the layoffs permanently, the administration may need to change course and work with Congress to make any major restructuring legal.
Either way, families are starting to be concerned about financial aid for this fall.
In the meantime, the Education Department remains in a holding pattern. The court’s decision, expected this summer, will determine whether the agency continues its current work or begins a shutdown that would affect everything from loan servicing to classroom funding.
Don't Miss These Other Stories:
Robert Farrington is the founder of The College Investor and is widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading voices on student loan debt and saving for college. He holds an MBA from UC San Diego Rady School of Management and has spent over 15 years researching, writing, and advising on student loans, 529 plans, financial aid programs, and saving and investing for young professionals.
Robert has been featured in the The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, NBC News, and Forbes, where he has been a regular personal finance contributor for over a decade. His work combines both professional expertise and personal experience – he successfully navigated his own student loan repayment journey and has helped thousands of readers do the same.
He is committed to making the intersection of personal finance and education transparent and accessible. You can learn more about Robert on the About Page or on his personal site RobertFarrington.com.