The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. “Given that the Government is likely to prevail on its assertion that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful — and considering that the other factors relevant to granting a stay are met — we approve the application,” the justices wrote.
Even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor sided with the majority in granting the stay, clarifying that her agreement was procedural, not ideological. “The plans themselves are not currently before this Court,” she noted. “I concur with the Court’s stay because it allows the District Court to address those issues initially.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning that the move could lead to “mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as established by Congress.” She argued that Trump’s executive action required congressional authorization, writing, “According to our Constitution, Congress possesses the authority to create administrative agencies and define their functions.”
Nonetheless, the majority found that the administration had the legal authority to begin implementation of its downsizing agenda.
This decision is part of a broader Trump administration effort to cut government spending and streamline operations. The transition is being overseen by the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by Elon Musk, and affects staff across multiple major agencies—including Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and the EPA.
Labor unions and progressive advocacy groups had filed lawsuits to halt the order, citing the potential disruption to federal services and employment. But Tuesday’s ruling allows the administration to move forward.
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the Court’s decision on X (formerly Twitter): “Today, the Supreme Court prevented lawless lower courts from limiting President Trump’s power over federal personnel — yet another Supreme Court triumph thanks to [Justice Department] lawyers.”
“Now, federal agencies can achieve unprecedented levels of efficiency,” she added.
The ruling caps off a string of wins for Trump at the high court in recent months. In June, the justices agreed to hear a challenge brought by Republican groups against federal campaign finance laws that limit how much political parties can spend on behalf of specific candidates.
That case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was initiated by the NRSC, NRCC, and two Senate candidates at the time—including current Vice President JD Vance. The petitioners argue that the restrictions violate First Amendment protections by limiting political parties’ ability to fully support their candidates.
Together, these legal victories mark a significant momentum shift for the Trump administration as it pushes forward with an aggressive agenda to reshape the federal bureaucracy and expand the political influence of party committees heading into 2026 and beyond.