Lone dissenter Jackson slams SCOTUS for 'casually' overriding judge who blocked US job-cuts plan
President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring federal agencies to submit plans for “large-scale” workforce reductions can take effect, for now, as a result of a decision Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court stayed a federal judge’s preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s order in an 8-1 decision. The high court’s stay remains in place during a challenge to the order filed by unions, nonprofits and local governments.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.
“As in other recent dissents,” SCOTUSblog notes, “Jackson had sharp words for her colleagues.”
Trump’s executive order generally limits new government hires to one person for every four who depart. A joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management implemented the executive order.
The Supreme Court said the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum 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 Supreme Court said in its July 8 per curiam opinion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a concurrence she joins the majority because the stay leaves the district court free to consider whether plans that are developed are “consistent with the constraints of law.”
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California had granted the preliminary injunction in a May 22 order.
“Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress’ mandates, and a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress,” Illston wrote.
Jackson supported Illston’s findings in her dissent.
“This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the federal government as Congress has created it,” Jackson wrote.
Jackson said the federal judge was in the best position to consider whether the executive order “effects a massive restructuring of the federal government” that has historically required congressional approval. The Supreme Court lacks the capacity to evaluate and override a judge’s reasoned factfinding “from its lofty perch,” Jackson said.
The Supreme Court’s majority is “casually discarding 55 pages of evidence-based lower court reasoning,” she said.
“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the people paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” Jackson said.
The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees.
Publications covering the Supreme Court’s stay include SCOTUSblog, Bloomberg Law, Reuters and Law.com.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
