Groups urge Supreme Court to leave order in place reinstating Department of Education employees

A group of states, school districts, and teachers’ unions on Friday afternoon urged the Supreme Court in two separate filings to leave in place an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that directs the Department of Education to reinstate nearly 1,400 employees who were fired as part of a reduction in force. In their response brief, the school districts and unions told the justices that the order by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun “is not superintending the Department’s operations; the court is simply preserving the status quo to permit orderly adjudication.” 

“If the dismantling of the Department is allowed to go forward now,” the school districts and unions wrote, and the plaintiffs eventually obtain a final ruling in their favor, “it will be effectively impossible to undo much of the damage caused.” By contrast, if the government wins, “it will be able to put its plans into operation merely slightly later than otherwise.” 

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the RIF, which would affect nearly half of the department’s workforce, in a press release on March 11. The RIF, she said, “reflects the Department of Education’s commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers.” 

Nine days later, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that instructed McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” 

A group of 19 states, led by New York, along with the District of Columbia, two public school districts and several teachers’ unions, filed two different lawsuits (which were later combined) in federal court, seeking to block the department from moving forward with the RIF. They contended that the mass firings violated both the Constitution and the federal laws governing administrative agencies. 

On May 22, Joun ordered the department to reverse the RIF and reinstate the employees who had already been fired. He also barred the department from transferring its student loan and special needs programs to other agencies within the government. Joun concluded that the Trump administration’s “true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department” even though there is no law giving it the power to do so. 

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to put Joun’s order on hold while the government appealed, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer came to the Supreme Court. He told the justices in a filing on June 6 that the “RIF effectuates the Administration’s policy of streamlining the Department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the Administration’s view, are better left to the States.” 

The states emphasized in their filings on Friday that the Trump administration “barely attempt[s] to argue that their actions are lawful.” Rather, the states wrote, the administration contends that Joun’s order should be put on hold even if, as the challengers have shown, “the RIF has decimated the Department, rendering it unable to perform its statutory functions.” 

The Trump administration raises a variety of other arguments instead – for example, that the challengers lack a legal right to sue, known as standing. But Joun made “detailed factual findings,” the challengers say, that “catalog numerous other harms to the States” giving them standing. 

Nor does Joun’s order require the department to bring back all of the fired employees, the challengers said. First, the states stressed, “the court of appeals correctly held that restoring the agency’s staff to the extent needed to carry out statutory functions is an appropriate and available remedy.” The states acknowledged that the department can “reduce staffing levels if such reduction does not prevent the Department from performing its statutory duties.” But what the Trump administration cannot do, they concluded, “is curtail all relief to the States without identifying any alternative approach to redress the States’ injuries.”