Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees
Emergency application for stay is granted on July 8, 2025. Justice Sotomayor concurred in the grant of the stay. Justice Jackson dissented.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district court's nationwide injunction barring the executive branch from formulating and implementing plans to initiate large-scale reductions of the federal workforce.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Supreme Court allows Trump administration to implement plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce (Amy Howe, July 8, 2025)
- Groups oppose Trump’s plan to massively reduce the federal workforce (Amy Howe, June 9, 2025)
- Trump administration again comes to the Supreme Court seeking large-scale reductions in the federal workforce (Amy Howe, June 2, 2025)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 06/02/2025 | Application (24A1174) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan. |
| 06/02/2025 | Response to application (24A1174) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 12 p.m. (EDT), on June 9, 2025. |
| 06/06/2025 | Brief amici curiae of Former Government Officials and Advisors filed. |
| 06/06/2025 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. |
| 06/09/2025 | Response to application from respondents American Federation of Government Employees, et al. filed. |
| 06/09/2025 | Brief amici curiae of America's Future, et al. filed. |
| 06/10/2025 | Reply of applicants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed. |
| 07/08/2025 | Application (24A1174) referred to the Court. |
| 07/08/2025 | Application (24A1174) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25–cv–3698, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based on its view that Executive Order No. 14210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (2025), and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management implementing that Executive Order are unlawful. Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied— we grant the application. We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court. Justice Sotomayor concurs. (Detached Opinion) Justice Jackson dissents. (Detached Opinion) |