A recent high-level decision has stirred quiet concerns—and some loud reactions. A long-brewing proposal tied to federal workforce changes has now been given the go-ahead after previously being held up.

While many expected a divided response, what happened next shocked both experts and casual observers.

Now, a major government initiative is once again in motion, and the full effects may be felt nationwide.



The Supreme Court has approved a request from the former administration to continue with federal agency restructuring and layoffs while legal appeals remain unresolved. The decision came as an 8–1 ruling.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority, despite their usual alignment with more liberal interpretations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenter.

This legal move centers on a February 11 executive order that instructed federal agencies to begin creating reduction in force (RIF) plans.


The goal of the order was to reduce the size of the federal workforce and reallocate government resources. On May 22, US District Judge Susan Illston blocked the plan, stating it required congressional involvement for such significant changes.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld that decision. However, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow the restructuring plans to continue while the case moved through the legal process.

The Supreme Court granted that request. “The application for stay presented to Justice [Elena] Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted,” the Court stated.

It continued, “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.”

This ruling now nullifies previous decisions from both the federal judge and the 9th Circuit that blocked the implementation.



Also read: A Supreme Court just replaced its news anchors... with AI?

The 9th Circuit had previously described the order as “an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations,” claiming it exceeded constitutional boundaries.

Among legal experts reacting to the decision was Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, who posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the ruling was a “major victory” for the Trump administration.

Justice Jackson issued a detailed dissent, strongly criticizing the majority’s decision to allow the plan to move forward at this stage.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives,” she wrote.

“And it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she added.

Jackson warned that initiating these changes before a full legal review could cause irreversible disruption. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,” she concluded.


Supporters of the decision see it as a move to restore executive authority over government operations.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said that “Today's US Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration.”

He added that “It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President's constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government."

Meanwhile, opposition groups voiced deep concern. A coalition—including the American Federation of Government Employees—said the ruling “puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
They emphasized that the Constitution requires congressional oversight before such broad cuts and reorganizations.

“While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy,” the coalition added.



Also read: Supreme Court takes up case involving birthright citizenship and executive powers

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon praised the decision. He referred to it as a “green light on Article 2 power to fire federal employees or contractors.”

The Supreme Court’s decision does not resolve the core legal debate. It only removes current obstacles to implementing the executive order while litigation continues.

Federal agencies may now begin layoffs and restructuring unless a future ruling halts the process again. This action reflects a broader trend where the Supreme Court has pushed back against nationwide injunctions by lower courts.

Some legal analysts say the Court is signaling that significant policy decisions should not be halted by lower-level judges without final review.


Others warn this could shift too much authority to the executive branch. The ongoing case may help define how much power the president has in reshaping the federal government without congressional approval.

For now, federal employees and their agencies must prepare for uncertainty.

If you or someone in your family works in the federal system, this decision could affect job security, operations, or benefits.

Even services used by the public—such as veterans’ programs or Social Security administration—could see potential restructuring.

The full consequences will depend on future court rulings and how aggressively the order is carried out.

Read next: Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision: The legal battle involving Elon Musk

What are your thoughts on this major Supreme Court ruling? Do you agree with the Court’s decision to allow the administration to move forward—or do you side with Justice Jackson’s concerns? Have you or someone you know been affected by changes in federal service or agency cuts? Share your thoughts in the comments.