SCOTUS Lifts Injunction Blocking Trump Administration’s Plans to Reduce Federal Workforce

In Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, 606 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s request to stay a district court order blocking President Donald Trump’s plan to reduce and restructure the federal workforce. 

Facts of the Case

On February 11, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order seeking to reduce the size of the federal government through reductions in force (RIFs). Exec. Order No. 14,210 specifically directed agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law,” and in doing so to prioritize RIFs for “offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law.” 

Approximately two weeks later, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly issued a memorandum to all executive-branch agencies regarding the implementation of the President’s Executive Order through Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans (Plans). The Memo provided guidance on the principles that should inform the Plans, including objectives and priorities like providing “[b]etter

service for the American people” and “[i]ncreased productivity.” It also established deadlines for agencies to submit their “Phase 1” Plan and Phase 2” Plans.

Several labor unions, advocacy groups, and local governments filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the President, OPM, OMB, the U.S. DOGE Service, and 21 federal agencies. They sought to enjoin implementation of the Executive Order and the Memo jointly issued by the OPM and OMB to executive agencies. The district court granted a universal injunction enjoining the Trump Administration from proceeding with any existing or future RIFs pursuant to the Executive Order or Memo.

On May 30, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay the preliminary injunction. The Administration subsequently went to the Supreme Court to ask for a stay, arguing that the injunction “inflicts ongoing and severe harm on the government” because it “interferes with the Executive Branch’s internal operations and unquestioned legal authority to plan and carry out RIFs, and does so on a government-wide scale.”

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the stay. “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.

The majority went on to emphasize that it was not rendering any opinion on whether the RIF plans are lawful. “We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum,” the Court wrote. “The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.”

Dissent

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. In her opinion, Justice Brown argued that the Court’s ruling would “allow an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government to continue apace, causing irreparable harm before courts can determine whether the President has the authority to engage in the actions he proposes.”