The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with firing thousands of federal employees, overturning a lower court decision that had temporarily blocked the mass terminations.
In a brief, unsigned order, the justices lifted an injunction from a federal district court in California that had barred the administration from terminating probationary employees across six major federal agencies: Agriculture, Treasury, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Interior, and Energy. The case was initially brought by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the country’s largest public sector union, which alleged that the firings were unlawful and exceeded the administration’s authority.
The high court ruled that the lower court’s injunction was based solely on the claims of nine nonprofit organizations that had filed the lawsuit alongside AFGE. According to the Supreme Court, those groups failed to demonstrate proper legal standing to justify the injunction.
“Under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing,” the court wrote.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor did not provide an explanation, while Jackson criticized the ruling for greenlighting what she called a “non-urgent and disruptive” action by the executive branch.
A High-Stakes Clash Over Executive Power
The case reflects a broader legal and political clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and the federal judiciary, especially liberal-leaning judges who have repeatedly used nationwide injunctions to halt executive policies. The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant win for Trump and congressional Republicans, who argue that such injunctions unfairly obstruct the president’s constitutional authority.
The Trump administration has made reforming the federal workforce a central goal of its second term. Through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led publicly by billionaire Elon Musk, the administration has sought to overhaul how the federal government operates, citing the need to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Musk, though a prominent figure in the initiative, has had his authority checked by Trump to ensure that cabinet officials retain oversight of personnel decisions.
The administration says the mass firings target underperforming probationary employees—workers typically within their first year or two of federal service, when job protections are limited. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which oversees the federal workforce, coordinated the effort with DOGE.
AFGE and its allies argued that the White House was using OPM to overstep its legal bounds, initiating terminations without adequate oversight or cause. In a statement after the ruling, the union said it would continue to fight the firings.
“Despite this setback, our coalition remains unwavering in fighting for these workers who were wronged by the administration, and in protecting the freedoms of the American people. This battle is far from over,” the group said.
A Split Legal Landscape
While the Supreme Court’s decision affects thousands of employees, it does not apply nationwide. A separate injunction from a federal court in Maryland remains in effect, temporarily blocking the same policy for employees in Washington, D.C., and 19 Democratic-led states that filed a separate lawsuit.
That case includes the same six agencies, as well as more than a dozen others. For now, probationary employees in those jurisdictions cannot be fired under the administration’s policy, creating a patchwork legal situation in which some workers are protected while others are not.
Legal experts expect both the California and Maryland cases to continue working their way through the courts, potentially returning to the Supreme Court for a more definitive ruling on the scope of executive power over federal employment.
What’s Next?
With the injunction lifted, the Trump administration is expected to begin the termination process for an estimated 16,000 workers outside the areas covered by the Maryland ruling. It remains unclear how quickly the firings will be executed, or how individual agencies will handle appeals and due process for affected employees.
Meanwhile, unions and advocacy groups are preparing for further legal battles, warning that the administration’s aggressive posture toward the federal workforce could have long-term consequences for public service and institutional knowledge.
“This isn’t about efficiency—it’s about dismantling the public sector as we know it,” said one AFGE spokesperson. “We’re not backing down.”
