On March 11, 2025, the Secretary of Education initiated reduction-in-force proceedings, seeking to reduce the Department’s workforce by roughly 50 percent. The President subsequently ordered the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education” in a March 20, 2025 Executive Order. Twenty-one states filed a lawsuit, objecting to the large-scale reduction in force, and claiming that workforce reductions of that magnitude would prevent the Department from carrying out its statutory functions. On May 22, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered a preliminary injunction, purporting to halt the workforce reductions and restore those employees who were laid off. The District Court found that “the record abundantly revealed” that the administration’s intent “is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.” The court held that this action would violate the Separation of Powers doctrine and the Take Care Clause, which requires the President to “take care” that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. In its ruling, the District Court ordered the Department of Education to “reinstate federal employees” and “restore the Department to the status quo such that it is able to carry out its statutory functions.” It enjoined the Department of Education from carrying out its reduction in force, from implementing the Executive Order, and from transferring job functions out of the Department to other agencies. On June 4, 2025, after the government appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the government's request to stay, or suspend, the preliminary injunction. The Government then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court on June 6, 2025 in McMahon v. New York. Emergency relief is an extraordinary remedy, generally only granted under emergency circumstances. On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court granted emergency relief, and stayed the preliminary injunction while litigation proceeds. This means the Government is allowed to continue with the widespread reduction of force for Department of Education employees and can continue with the closure of the Agency while the matter is still pending before the First Circuit. The stay was granted in a 6-3 split with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. The majority did not explain its decision. Justice Sotomayor in her dissent highlighted the constitutional implications of abolishing a cabinet-level agency without Congressional authorization. The dissent explained the impact on the separation of powers by detailing how the lawmaking power is solely designated to Congress, and how the President is not able to amend, enact, or repeal statutes without congressional authorization. In addition, the dissent explained, the evidence gathered by the District Court demonstrated the Department of Education will likely not be able to carry out its statutorily designated functions, impacting services the Agency provides. For example, in her dissent, Justice Sotomayor, using the facts developed at the district court level, described the stay’s impact on the federal student aid program and highlighted how schools who accept federal-aid eligible students must initially be certified by the Department of Education, and then must frequently be re-certified. A reduction in force impacts recertification processing times, affecting the enrollment of federal aid-dependent students. In highlighting the ways in which staff reductions affect agency function, the dissenters painted the reduction in force and implementation of the Executive Order as a de facto closure of the agency without Congressional authorization. Read the Decision on the Application for Stay and Dissent here: McMahon v. New York

On March 11, 2025, the Secretary of Education initiated reduction-in-force proceedings, seeking to reduce the Department’s workforce by roughly 50 percent. The President subsequently ordered the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education” in a March 20,