McMahon v. New York
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's mass firings of more than half the Department of Education's staff to proceed while lower courts finish deciding whether those firings were legal, pausing a district court order that had required the fired employees to be reinstated.
Three justices dissented sharply, warning that the ruling hands the executive branch the power to gut agencies Congress created simply by firing the people needed to run them — a direct threat to the constitutional separation of powers.
How it got here: A federal district court in Massachusetts blocked the firings and ordered reinstatement; the First Circuit refused to stay that order; the government applied to the Supreme Court for emergency relief.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Trump administration fired more than half of the Department of Education's roughly 4,100 employees in a single day in March 2025, with the Secretary describing it as the "first step on the road to a total shutdown" of the agency. Congress created the Department in 1979 and tasked it with distributing over $120 billion in annual student aid, enforcing civil rights laws in schools, and supporting special education for more than 7 million students. A group of states, school districts, and unions sued, arguing only Congress — not the President — can abolish a Cabinet-level agency.
The question before the Court
Should the government's mass firings at the Department of Education be allowed to proceed while courts decide whether the administration can effectively shut down an agency that only Congress has the power to abolish?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court allowed the mass firings to proceed while the First Circuit considers the government's appeal, pausing the district court order that had required the fired employees to be reinstated. The majority issued no written explanation for its decision.
Three dissenting justices argued that the government was highly unlikely to win on the merits because the Constitution requires the President to faithfully execute the laws Congress passes — not dismantle the agencies charged with carrying them out — and that the harm to millions of students from a crippled Department far outweighed the government's cost of paying reinstated employees while litigation continued.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Millions of students who depend on federal financial aid, special education funding, and civil rights enforcement may face disrupted or delayed services as the Department operates at roughly half its normal staffing. Schools needing Department certifications to enroll students on financial aid face ongoing delays. The stay means the administration can continue the reduced-staffing arrangement until courts issue a final ruling on whether the firings were lawful.
What changes now
The case moves to the First Circuit, which will now decide the government's appeal of the preliminary injunction on the merits. If the government then seeks Supreme Court review and the Court agrees to hear the case, the stay remains in place until the Court rules; if the Court declines, the stay automatically ends. In the meantime, the Department continues operating at its reduced staffing level and the fired employees remain out of their jobs pending the appeal.
What this does not decide
The stay does not decide whether the President can lawfully shut down the Department of Education, whether the mass firings violated the Constitution or federal law, or whether the fired employees are entitled to permanent reinstatement. All of those questions remain open in the lower courts.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority was rewarding an executive branch that openly announced its intent to break the law and then carried that plan out. She contended that only Congress can abolish the Department of Education, that the mass firings left the Department unable to carry out its statutory duties, and that the harm to millions of students far outweighed any savings from the firings. She would have denied the stay and let the lower courts' injunction stand while the litigation continued.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- To win an emergency stay, the government needed to satisfy a four-part test: showing it was likely to succeed on appeal, that it would suffer serious harm without the stay, that granting the stay would not cause serious harm to others, and that the public interest favored pausing the lower court's order. The majority gave no written reasoning; the stay was granted without a signed opinion.
- On the likelihood-of-success factor, the dissent argued the government could not prevail because the Constitution's Take Care Clause — which requires the President to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts — forbids the executive branch from effectively repealing statutes by firing everyone needed to carry them out. Only Congress, which created the Department in 1979, has the authority to abolish it.
- The dissent also argued the Secretary separately violated the Department of Education Organization Act (the law that set up the Department), which bars the Secretary from abolishing offices established by Congress and requires 90 days' advance notice before even the limited subset of offices she may discontinue can be shut down. Neither requirement was met.
- On the harm factor, the dissent argued the costs to the government of paying reinstated employees during litigation were trivial compared to the damage to millions of students who depend on federal aid, special education funding, and civil rights enforcement — harms the District Court documented in detail and the government never rebutted with its own evidence.
- The dissent further argued the government forfeited its main objection to the reinstatement order by failing to raise it in the district court, and that any concern about the order's scope should be addressed by the lower courts first rather than used to wipe out the entire injunction.