On Thursday, a federal judge halted President Donald Trump’s extensive executive actions intended to dismantle the Department of Education, determining that such actions necessitate congressional approval.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun of Massachusetts also granted a preliminary injunction mandating the Trump administration to reinstate employees who were laid off in significant numbers earlier this year. The administration has committed to appealing this decision.
Judge Joun, appointed by Biden, stated in his opinion, “It is only reasonable to expect that an RIF [reduction in force] of this magnitude will likely cripple the Department. The notion that the Defendants’ actions are simply a ‘reorganization’ is clearly false.”
In March, Trump signed an executive order to initiate the process of reducing operations at the Education Department.
Prior to the court’s involvement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon had initiated the process to terminate over 1,300 employees. Alongside approximately 600 voluntary resignations, these reductions halved the workforce of the Department of Education, which originally comprised around 4,000 employees, as reported by the New York Post.
While publicly expressing a desire to dismantle the department, the Trump administration contended in legal documents that the widespread layoffs were merely an administrative action intended to enhance government efficiency—an action they asserted was within the secretary’s legal jurisdiction.
“The defendants do concede, as they are required to, that the Department cannot be dissolved without the consent of Congress; however, they concurrently assert that their legislative objectives… are separate from their administrative objectives (enhancing efficiency),” Joun remarked. “There is no evidence in the record to substantiate these conflicting claims.”
The Department of Education was established in 1979 under the administration of President Jimmy Carter. Since that time, numerous conservatives have pushed for its abolition, a goal that Trump has publicly supported.
However, the dismantling of the department would necessitate congressional approval, particularly in overcoming a probable Democratic filibuster in the Senate, which would require a minimum of 60 votes.
In reaction to the recent court decision that halted its initiatives, the Trump administration accused Judge Joun of “overstepping” his judicial authority.
“President Trump and the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education undoubtedly possess the authority to make decisions regarding agency reorganization efforts, not an unelected Judge with a political agenda,” stated DOE spokeswoman Madi Biedermann in a press release.
“This ruling does not serve the best interests of American students or families. We will promptly contest this on an emergency basis,” Biedermann further stated, according to The Post.
In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court was evenly split on Thursday in a prominent case concerning the nation’s first religious charter school.
The highest court in the nation, through a 4-4 decision, upheld a ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court that deemed the proposed Catholic school unconstitutional.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from participating in the case, leading to the tie. While she did not provide an explanation for her recusal, the former law professor at the University of Notre Dame has multiple connections to the attorneys representing the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.
Recently, religious organizations have achieved a series of favorable votes from the conservative majority, allowing public funds to be allocated for religious education and programs. Critics have argued that a favorable outcome for the school in this case could have significantly expanded the availability of government funding for religious schools or prompted states to withdraw or reassess charter school initiatives.
The Supreme Court issued a concise, unsigned order indicating that it was divided on the matter. The last time the Supreme Court was evenly split 4-4 was in 2022, concerning a more technical issue regarding the inspection requirements for locomotives under federal law.
Religious organizations interested in this case will have the opportunity to file a new complaint, as evenly divided rulings do not set a legal precedent.
The court did not disclose how the justices voted, and oral arguments are not typically reliable indicators of outcomes. However, during the court’s consideration of the issue in late April, Chief Justice John Roberts notably posed challenging questions to both sides and appeared to keep his decision-making options open.
