Case Law Updates

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,

On June 5, at the end of October 2024 term, the Supreme Court held that majority group members do not need to meet a higher evidentiary standard to demonstrate unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Last month, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the right to a jury trial extends to the issue of administrative exhaustion when the exhaustion issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim requiring a jury trial.

The Supreme Court has previously held that when a police officer uses deadly force, he violates the Fourth Amendment when the force used is not “objectively reasonable.” To determine the reasonableness of the force, the Supreme Court requires an assessment of the “totality of the circumstances.”

The Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”) prohibits federal agencies from retaliating against an employee for, among other things, disclosing information reasonably believed to be evidence of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act requires federal agencies to consider military services members for any advantage of employment that they would have been entitled to but for their absence for military service obligations.

On December 9, counsel for petitioner Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration and Coast Guard reserve officer, argued before the Supreme Court that Mr. Feliciano should be entitled to differential pay that matches his federal salary while ordered to active reserve duty.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) recently issued a precedential decision holding that an employee’s personal complaints and grievances about how an Agency treated them may constitute “nonfrivolous allegations of disclosures” of an abuse of authority.