Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order that allows the Trump administration to resume large-scale layoffs of federal workers. This action lifts a lower court injunction that had temporarily blocked the administration’s plan. While the Court did not rule on the legality of the layoffs, the decision allows the administration to move forward while litigation continues.
The executive order, issued in February 2025, directs federal agencies to prepare for “large-scale reductions in force,” or RIFs. It is part of a broader effort to eliminate what the administration describes as wasteful and unnecessary federal programs. A companion memo outlined a 4-to-1 attrition policy, allowing only one hire for every four employee departures.
Tens of thousands of federal workers have already lost their jobs or taken deferred resignation packages. Although the White House has not confirmed a specific figure, estimates from watchdog organizations suggest that more than 75,000 federal employees have been affected. Agencies impacted include the Departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Legal Ambiguity, High Stakes
In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked the administration from continuing the layoffs without congressional approval. She cited significant risks to critical government services, including food safety and healthcare for veterans. A panel from the Ninth Circuit affirmed that injunction, describing the administration’s approach as sweeping and legally questionable. The Supreme Court’s latest decision lifts that block, at least temporarily.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority. She argued that the Court was acting too early in the legal process and warned of lasting consequences. “This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it,” Jackson wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the majority but noted that the lower courts are still responsible for determining whether the layoffs comply with the law. “The plans themselves are not before this Court,” she wrote. “We thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.”
What This Means for Federal Employees
The decision has introduced uncertainty into the lives of federal workers. Tom Spiggle, founder of The Spiggle Law Firm and author of Fired? Afraid You Might Be?, said the ruling could have significant consequences for individual careers and livelihoods.
“This isn’t just about policy debates in Washington,” Spiggle said. “It’s about people losing access to steady work, benefits, and a career they’ve built. Many federal employees are asking whether they have any rights in this process.”
Spiggle emphasized that not all layoffs are legally permissible, even during a broad reorganization. “If someone was targeted for dismissal because of a protected characteristic such as age, disability, or past whistleblowing activity, then that may be illegal,” he said.
He advised affected workers to document events carefully and consider speaking with an employment attorney if they suspect unfair treatment. “In some cases, reductions in force can be used to disguise unlawful discrimination,” Spiggle explained.
Due Process Still Matters
The administration argues that the president does not need additional authorization from Congress to conduct agency-wide layoffs. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the Supreme Court’s order, saying it “stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump’s authority over federal personnel.”
Critics, including labor unions and several local governments, argue the opposite. In a joint statement, a coalition of plaintiffs said, “This decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
The administration’s actions now return to Judge Illston’s courtroom, where constitutional and statutory questions about executive authority will continue to be litigated.
Next Steps for Workers
Spiggle said employees should act quickly if they believe they have been targeted unfairly. “You only have a limited window to file claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Sometimes you have as short as 180 days from the date of the adverse action,” he noted.
Tom Spiggle noted that resources are available to help workers estimate the value of potential employment claims. “Even if you aren’t ready to file a case, understanding what your claim might be worth can help you make smart decisions,” he said.
For now, federal employees across the country are left waiting, unsure of when or if the next round of cuts will come.