The Trump administration has returned to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn lower court blocks on federal workforce reductions, setting up a showdown over presidential powers and the separation of branches.
At a Glance
- Trump’s administration appealed to the Supreme Court to lift Judge Susan Illston’s order blocking federal workforce reductions
- Lower courts, including the 9th Circuit, ruled Trump needs congressional approval for mass layoffs
- Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues the judicial branch has overstepped its authority into executive personnel matters
- This marks the administration’s 18th emergency appeal to the Supreme Court during Trump’s second term
- The Supreme Court has instructed plaintiffs to respond by June 9
Battle Over Executive Authority
The Trump administration has escalated its legal battle over federal workforce reductions to the Supreme Court, challenging lower court rulings that have blocked the president’s executive order directing agencies to prepare for large-scale reductions in force (RIFs). U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the emergency appeal after both a federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s arguments that the president has inherent authority to manage executive branch personnel without specific congressional authorization.
At the heart of the dispute is a February executive order in which President Trump directed federal agencies to prepare for significant workforce reductions. Labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, along with local governments and advocacy groups, promptly sued to block the order. Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California responded by issuing first a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, effectively halting RIF preparations at 21 federal agencies.
— P a u l ◉ (@SkylineReport) May 23, 2025
Legal Arguments and Judicial Reasoning
In court filings, Sauer has forcefully argued that the lower court rulings represent judicial overreach into executive branch operations. The 9th Circuit’s decision to uphold Judge Illston’s injunction centered on the conclusion that Trump’s order exceeded his constitutional supervisory powers over the executive branch. The appeals court determined that without specific congressional authorization, the president lacks authority to implement such sweeping personnel changes across federal agencies.
“The injunction 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.”, said D. John Sauer.
Sauer has characterized the injunction as causing “ongoing and severe harm to the government,” arguing that it disrupts planning for legally authorized reductions in force across multiple agencies. The administration’s position is that the president possesses inherent constitutional authority to oversee executive personnel matters without explicit statutory authorization from Congress, positioning this case as a fundamental separation of powers issue.
🔥 Judge Blocks Trump’s Federal Workforce Cuts
So Get the new drama..
In a bold legal twist, a San Francisco judge just slammed the brakes on Trump's plan to slash thousands of federal jobs. With unions fighting back and Musk’s DOGE dreams hitting a wall, the courtroom drama is… pic.twitter.com/0H3zVZVXYT— GovCon Digest (@GovConDigest) May 20, 2025
Broader Pattern of Judicial Challenges
This emergency appeal represents the 18th such request the Trump administration has made to the Supreme Court during the president’s second term. The high court previously declined a similar petition in an earlier phase of the workforce reduction case. The frequency of these appeals highlights growing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary over the scope and implementation of Trump’s policy agenda.
The administration has faced multiple nationwide injunctions from lower courts affecting key policy initiatives. In addition to the workforce reduction case, the Supreme Court is currently considering another significant case related to birthright citizenship and the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. That decision, expected soon, could have broad implications for how courts address executive actions and the scope of relief they can provide in challenges to presidential authority.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has instructed the plaintiffs in the case to file their response by June 9, after which the justices will decide whether to grant the administration’s request for an administrative stay to pause Judge Illston’s order while they consider the larger questions at stake. The case, titled Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, could potentially provide significant clarification on the boundaries between executive and legislative authority in managing the federal workforce.
For federal workers caught in the middle of this high-stakes legal battle, the outcome will determine whether agencies can proceed with preparations for potential layoffs or if congressional approval will be required before any large-scale reductions can move forward. The Supreme Court’s decision will have immediate practical consequences for government operations and could establish important precedent for presidential authority in administrative matters.
