The Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower court injunction, allowing the government to move forward with sweeping plans to reorganize and downsize federal agencies while legal challenges continue.
The case centers on Executive Order No. 14210, issued by President Donald J. Trump in February 2025. The order directs nearly all federal agencies to prepare for large-scale reductions in force and significant reorganizations, with the stated goal of eliminating or consolidating agencies and cutting non-critical functions. The order was quickly met with lawsuits from unions, nonprofits, and local governments, who argue that such a fundamental restructuring of the federal government requires explicit congressional approval.
A federal district court in California had issued a preliminary injunction in May, halting implementation of the executive order and a related memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The court found that the administration’s actions likely exceeded presidential authority and risked undermining congressional mandates.
On July 8, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s emergency application for a stay, effectively lifting the injunction for now. The ruling means the government may proceed with its reorganization and workforce reduction plans as the case continues in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly returns to the high court for a full review.
The majority’s brief order stated that the government is likely to succeed in its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful, and that the other legal factors for granting a stay were satisfied. However, the Court emphasized that it was not ruling on the legality of any specific agency reorganization plans at this stage.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, concurring, acknowledged concerns about presidential authority but noted that the executive order directs agencies to act “consistent with applicable law.” She stressed that the legality of individual agency plans remains for the lower courts to assess.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a lengthy dissent, strongly criticized the decision. She argued that the President’s actions represent an unprecedented attempt to restructure the federal government without congressional approval, breaking with nearly a century of established practice. Jackson emphasized that Congress has historically granted and sometimes denied presidents the authority to reorganize agencies, and that the current executive order bypasses this process.
Jackson highlighted the district court’s extensive fact-finding, which included evidence of plans to eliminate large portions of agency workforces and potentially dismantle entire agencies. She warned that allowing the administration to proceed could cause irreparable harm to public services and the constitutional balance of powers.
The stay remains in effect while the Ninth Circuit considers the administration’s appeal. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case after the appellate decision, the stay will end. If the Court grants full review, the stay will last until a final judgment is issued.
