1. Background: Trump’s Executive Order and Mass Layoffs
- On March 11, 2025, the Trump administration announced a reduction-in-force (RIF) eliminating over 1,300 staffers at the Department of Education, slashing its workforce from approximately 4,133 to about 2,100.
- A week later, on March 20, President Trump formalized his intent with an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education” and return authority to states
- Trump and McMahon framed the reductions as an effort to boost efficiency and accountability
2. Legal Challenge: Coalition Lawsuits
- Lawsuits were filed by a coalition including 20 Democratic attorneys general, school districts, teacher unions, and education advocacy groups like Democracy Forward and the American Federation of Teachers
- Plaintiffs argued that the RIF would render the department incapable of fulfilling statutorily mandated functions, such as managing student loans, enforcing civil rights in schools, and distributing federal aid
3. Judge Joun’s Injunction
- On May 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the administration from proceeding with layoffs or transferring key responsibilities to other agencies
- He wrote: “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all.” He concluded that the cuts would likely “cripple the Department” and were more than mere reorganization
- The ruling also ordered the reinstatement of approximately 1,300 terminated employees and prohibited relocating control of federal student loans and special education programs to other departments
4. Administration Response & Appeal
- The Trump administration disputed the ruling, calling Judge Joun a “far‑left judge” overstepping his role and vowed to immediately appeal the injunction
- They maintain that only Congress could abolish the Education Department and that their RIF and reorganization efforts were within executive authority
5. Broader Legal Rulings on Appeal
- On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld Judge Joun’s assessment that the staffing reductions made it “effectively impossible” for ED to perform its core functions, refusing to lift the injunction
- However, on July 14, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the administration the right to proceed with the mass layoffs while litigation continues. The three liberal justices dissented, warning of executive overreach and threats to separation of powers
6. Implications for Education Policy and Constitutional Balance
- Federal authority vs. state control: Trump’s effort reflects broader aims of shifting education policy to states, a principle rooted in initiatives like Project 2025
- Impact on services: Critics warn the disruption could delay student aid, impair enforcement of civil rights, and limit grants and data tracking used by schools—especially affecting vulnerable populations
- Separation of powers concerns: The courts emphasized that dismantling a Congressional agency via executive action risks undermining legislative authority
Conclusion
A federal judge has temporarily halted President Trump's executive actions aimed at dismantling the Department of Education, citing constitutional limits on executive power and disrupted statutory duties. While the administration has appealed and the Supreme Court allowed layoffs to resume, the broader legal battle continues. The case underscores enduring tensions over federal versus state control in education and sets a notable precedent for separation of powers.