Oakland (Special to ZennieReport.com) – What the United States Supreme Court just did in giving the Trump Administration the right to fire Department of Education staff should wake up anyone who understands that America is supposed to be ran under a chain of command that says Congress has the power to end federal departments. In its decision to allow the Trump Administration to fire more Department of Education staff, the “conservative” wing of the U.S. knowingly set in motion a crippling of the federal organization’s efforts to carry out its mission. It’s a move against the people, as it will lead to job-killing, and thus further reduction in American gross domestic product, let alone a worse education climate.
It’s fitting that the Trump-installed Supreme Court judges that comprise the majority did not explain its decision in the brief, unsigned order. The American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO press release sounds the call for concern.
American Federation of Teachers Says Supreme Court Clears Path for Unlawful Trump-Vance Administration Plan to Destroy Department of Education
The U.S. Supreme Court today delivered a significant blow to public education in America, effectively allowing President Trump’s attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education to proceed while a case challenging the unlawful cuts is considered. The Supreme Court order grants the government’s request for a stay, lifting two lower court decisions that had blocked mass firings and the unlawful elimination of many of the Department’s crucial offices.
The coalition that filed the complaint – which includes the Somerville Public School Committee, Easthampton School District, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) – Massachusetts, AFT, AFSCME Council 93, American Association of University Professors, and Service Employees International Union – won an injunction in district court that was further upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, temporarily stopping the destruction of the Department. The case is Somerville v. Trump (now consolidated with New York v. McMahon) and the coalition is represented by Democracy Forward. The coalition released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court decision:
“We are incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward. This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation. Children will be among those hurt the most by this decision. We will never stop fighting on behalf of all students and public schools and the protections, services, and resources they need to thrive.”
From distributing funds to helping schools educate students with disabilities, to providing support and assistance to parents and families, protecting students’ civil rights, and making sure higher education is affordable for students, the Department of Education’s work is essential to the success of students.
The dismantling of the Department began via the sudden and disruptive mass layoffs of half of the entire Department. Prior to January 20, 2025, the Department employed 4,133 employees. The administration’s proposal would leave less than 2,200 remaining.
In addition to the mass layoffs, a presidential Executive Order and other administration statements have described the intent to close the Department and move Department programs and offices, such as the Office of Special Education Programs and the Office of Federal Student Aid, to different federal agencies with no relevant expertise or necessary resources.
The legal team at Democracy Forward on this case includes Will Bardwell, Elena Goldstein, Rachel F. Homer, Victoria Nugent, Adnan Perwez, and Kali Schellenberg.
This Was The Opening Part Of The Injunction The Supreme Court Action Overturned
For over 150 years, the federal government has played a crucial role in education. Congress created the Department of Education (the “Department”) in 1979 to streamline federal support of education into a single, Cabinet-level department. The Department’s role in education across the nation cannot be understated: it administers the federal student loan portfolio, provides research and technological assistance to states and their educational institutions, disburses federal education funds, and monitors and enforces compliance with numerous federal laws. Congress enacted these laws to promote equality and anti-discrimination in schools, assist students with special needs and disabilities, ensure student privacy, and much more.
This case arises out of an attempt by Defendants to shut down the Department without Congressional approval. President Trump has publicly and repeatedly promised to shut down the Department “immediately.”1 On March 11, 2025, Defendants announced a massive reduction in force (“RIF”), cutting the Department’s staff by half. On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
Defendants do acknowledge, as they must, that the Department cannot be shut down without Congress’s approval,2 yet they simultaneously claim that their legislative goals (obtaining Congressional approval to shut down the Department) are distinct from their administrative goals (improving efficiency). There is nothing in the record to support these contradictory positions. Not only is there no evidence that Defendants are pursuing a “legislative goal” or otherwise working with Congress to reach a resolution, but there is also no evidence that the RIF has actually made the Department more efficient. Rather, the record is replete with evidence of the opposite. Consolidated Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Department will not be able to carry out its statutory functions—and in some cases, is already unable to do so—and Defendants have proffered no evidence to the contrary. Defendants fail to understand Plaintiffs’ claims which is evident by their attempt to frame this case as an unlawful terminations employment action. As fully explained below, a preliminary injunction is warranted to return the Department to the status quo such that it can comply with its statutory obligations.
On March 21, 2025, President Trump further announced that the federal student loan portfolio as well as the special needs programs would be transferred out of the Department. Defendants argue that the RIF was implemented to improve “efficiency” and “accountability” in the Department. The record abundantly reveals that Defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.
Since the implementation of the RIF, Plaintiffs—a group of states, school districts, non-profit organizations, and labor unions—have provided an in-depth look into how the massive reduction in staff has made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutorily mandated functions. As one example, Defendants have shut down seven out of twelve offices of the Office for Civil Rights, a statutorily created program that protects students from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability. The supporting declarations of former Department employees, educational institutions, unions, and educators paint a stark picture of the irreparable harm that will result from financial uncertainty and delay, impeded access to vital knowledge on which students and educators rely, and loss of essential services for America’s
most vulnerable student populations. Indeed, prior to the RIF, the Department was already struggling to meet its goals, so it is only reasonable to expect that an RIF of this magnitude will likely cripple the Department. The idea that Defendants’ actions are merely a “reorganization” is plainly not true.
Conclusion Of The Injunction Is Here
VIII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Consolidated Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. No. 69; 25-cv-10677 Doc. No. 25], is GRANTED. The Department must be able to carry out its functions and its obligations under the DEOA and other relevant statutes as mandated by Congress.
It is therefore ORDERED, until further order of this Court, that:
- The Agency Defendants are enjoined from carrying out the reduction-in-force announced on March 11, 2025; from implementing President Trump’s March 20, 2025 Executive Order; and from carrying out the President’s March 21, 2025 Directive to transfer management of federal student loans and special education functions out of the Department;
- The Agency Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating the March 11, 2025, the President’s March 20, 2025 Executive Order, or the President’s March 21, 2025 Directive under a different name;
- The Agency Defendants shall reinstate federal employees whose employment was terminated or otherwise eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the reduction- in-force announced on March 11, 2025 to restore the Department to the status quo such that it is able to carry out its statutory functions;
- The Agency Defendants shall provide notice of this Order of Preliminary Injunction within 24 hours of entry to all their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them;
- The Agency Defendants shall file a status report with this Court within 72 hours of the entry of this Order, describing all steps the Agency Defendants have taken to comply with this Order, and every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025; and
- This Preliminary Injunction shall become effective immediately upon entry by this Court. The Preliminary Injunction Order shall remain in effect for the duration of this litigation and until a merits decision has been issued. SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of May 2025 at 10:30 A.M. Myong J. Joun United States District Judge.
The rest of the 86 page document is here.