So I Got a Call From The New York Times...
The Latest Trump Move Involving Minneapolis Is Going to Trigger a Lib Meltdown
Here’s Why That ICE Agent Involved in the Minneapolis Shooting Is in Hiding
Latest NYT Piece on Mamdani Shows How Being an American Liberal Is Just...
Why the Hell Should We Care If Democrats Don’t?
Israel Misunderstood
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 303: The Best of St. Paul
Frey: Let Minneapolis Get Back to Running Daycares
You Won't Believe What These Hotels Are Doing to ICE Agents
Trump Questions Why Minnesotans Are Harassing ICE, Civilians
Men Need to Work
Greenland and the Return of Great-Power Politics
INSANITY: Mob of Leftist Rioters Stab and Beat Anti-Islam Activist in Minneapolis
U.S. Strike in Syria Kills Terrorist Linked to Murder of American Soldiers
Florida Man Convicted of $4.5M Scheme to Defraud U.S. Military Fuel Program
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Hands Trump White House a Major Win, and Slaps Down Justice Jackson Again

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The Trump administration clinched another win today, with the Supreme Court shredding a restraining order on a rogue lower court’s ruling that prevented the government from reorganizing its workforce. For now, the mass layoffs that were put on hold are back on (via The Hill):

Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a judge’s order preventing the Trump administration from conducting mass layoffs across the federal bureaucracy, for now. 

The court in its unsigned ruling said Trump’s February executive order directing federal agencies to prepare for reductions in force, or RIFs, is likely lawful.

It enables federal agencies to resume implementing Trump’s directive, though the high court left the door open for plaintiffs to challenge any agency’s specific plan down the road. 

“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 court’s ruling cautions.  

But for now, it marks a major victory for the administration, which has brought a flurry of  emergency appeals to the Supreme Court seeking to halt lower judges’ injunctions. 

The ruling was 8-1, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. Yet, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett did in the Casa decision, which curtailed lower court’s national injunction power, Jackson got cooked in the opinion, only it was by Sonia Sotomayor—she had to remind Jackson that the Court can only opine on what’s been presented before them, not what they think is being presented before the body.  

Advertisement

Related:

SUPREME COURT

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring in the grant of stay. 

I agree with JUSTICE JACKSON that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. See post, at 13. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force “consistent with applicable law,” App. to Application for Stay 2a, and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much. The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance.

Advertisement

In the CASA decision, Justice Barrett was less charitable, wholly dismissing Jackson’s opinion, and for good reason: it’s not grounded in law. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement