McMahon v. New York
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with mass layoffs at the Department of Education while legal challenges continue, lifting a federal court order that had required the agency to rehire more than 1,900 fired employees.
The unsigned, unexplained order is temporary and does not settle whether the president can effectively dismantle a Cabinet-level agency created by Congress, but it hands the executive branch a significant near-term victory in its effort to shut down the Department.
How it got here: A Massachusetts federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the layoffs and ordering reinstatement; the First Circuit refused to stay that injunction; the federal government then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Trump administration fired more than half of the Department of Education's workforce in a single day in March 2025, openly describing the action as the first step toward shutting down the agency entirely. A group of states, school districts, and unions sued, presenting evidence that the layoffs had already disrupted billions of dollars in federal education funding, delayed financial aid certifications, and dismantled offices Congress had specifically created to enforce civil rights and support students with disabilities.
The question before the Court
Could the Trump administration proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education — and continue working toward the agency's shutdown — while lawsuits challenging those actions played out in lower courts?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court granted the federal government's emergency request to pause the lower court's injunction, allowing the mass layoffs to take effect and lifting the requirement that fired employees be reinstated while the litigation continues. The Court issued no written explanation for its decision.
The stay is not a final ruling on whether the layoffs were lawful. It remains in effect through the First Circuit appeal and, if the government timely seeks Supreme Court review, through any further proceedings before this Court. If the Court ultimately declines to hear the case, the stay ends automatically and the lower court's injunction would resume.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Schools and students who rely on the Department for billions in federal aid, civil rights enforcement, and special education funding will face continued uncertainty and potential service disruptions. States already reporting funding delays and certification backlogs will not have a court-enforced remedy while the appeal proceeds, and the fired employees who had been ordered reinstated must now leave again.
What changes now
The stay remains in effect while the First Circuit hears the government's appeal of the preliminary injunction. If the government timely petitions the Supreme Court for review and the Court agrees to hear the case, the stay continues until the Court issues its final ruling; if certiorari is denied, the stay automatically expires and the lower court's injunction would revive. The underlying legal question — whether the executive branch can effectively dismantle a congressionally created agency by gutting its staff — remains unresolved and will continue to be litigated.
What this does not decide
The order does not decide whether the mass layoffs or the executive order directing the Department's closure were lawful. It only pauses the reinstatement requirement while appeals continue. The Court expressed no view on the separation-of-powers or statutory questions at the heart of the case, which remain fully open.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor argued the majority's stay was indefensible and that the government had not come close to meeting the heavy burden required for emergency Supreme Court relief after two lower courts had already ruled against it. She contended that only Congress can abolish a Cabinet-level agency, that the mass firings effectively repealed federal statutes by eliminating the staff needed to carry them out, and that the equities overwhelmingly favored keeping the injunction in place to protect millions of students from ongoing harm. She accused the majority of handing the executive branch an unconstitutional power to repeal laws through workforce elimination.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The standard for Supreme Court emergency stays requires 'extraordinary circumstances.' The applicant bears an 'especially heavy burden' when, as here, two lower courts have already refused to pause the injunction. The Court weighs four factors: likelihood of success on the merits of an appeal to this Court, whether the applicant suffers serious irreparable harm without a pause, harm to the opposing side if the pause is granted, and the broader public interest.
- On the merits, the dissent argued the government had little chance of winning because the Constitution gives lawmaking power exclusively to Congress, and the president is required to 'faithfully execute' laws — not repeal them by firing everyone needed to carry them out. The Department of Education was created by a specific act of Congress, and only Congress can abolish it. The Secretary also violated a statutory provision requiring 90 days' notice before discontinuing certain offices.
- On standing — whether the parties suing had the right to be in court at all — the dissent pointed to concrete, documented injuries already flowing from the layoffs: a Washington State college forced to enroll barely one-fifth its expected class size because of an 18-week certification delay; multiple states experiencing drawdown delays on billions in federal reimbursements; and offices entirely eliminated that Congress had specifically placed under legal protection.
- On the balance of harms, the dissent argued the scales tipped sharply toward keeping the injunction in place. The government's main harm from the stay was paying wages for employees it had no legal right to fire. Against that stood disrupted funding, stalled certifications, and loss of civil rights enforcement for millions of students — harms the dissent characterized as vastly more serious and difficult to undo.
- The majority granted the stay without a written opinion, implicitly concluding that the government satisfied the four-factor standard for emergency relief. Because the Court produced no majority opinion, its precise reasoning on any of these factors is not available from this document.