Supreme Court Greenlights Trump Administration’s Federal Workforce Restructuring Plan

In an unsigned order in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, the Court reversed a district court ruling enjoining the order “Implementing The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative” (EO No. 14210) from taking effect, determining that the government was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the other factors for a stay of the injunction were satisfied. The Court expressly declined to opine on the legality of any specific agency reorganization plans, emphasizing that it addressed only the lawfulness of the EO and its implementing memorandum.

Below, we outline the case background, provide details on Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurrence and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, and discuss the procedural posture of the case, which implicates the Court’s “shadow docket”— a term that describes the Court’s handling of emergency applications and other summary decisions outside its regular merits docket which has increasingly been discussed in recent years.

Litigation Background

The Trump Administration has pursued an ambitious policy agenda since taking office. (For more, see here, here, and here.) From the outset, a main plank of that agenda was reducing the federal workforce. We have discussed the Trump Administration’s deregulatory agenda — including workforce restructuring — before.

In late April, groups including unions, non-governmental organizations, and local governments sued more than a dozen federal agencies, alleging that the Trump Administration’s efforts to set up DOGE with EO No. 14210 “to compel a ‘critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy’” for the purported purpose of “eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity,” including by conducting “large-scale” reductions in force (RIF) to further the reorganization of the federal agencies, was proceeding without appropriate congressional authorization. The plaintiffs alleged that the actions were outside of their statutory powers (“ultra vires” in lawyer-speak), violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, and sought a preliminary injunction restraining further implementation of EO No. 14210.

The district court, after extensive fact-finding, concluded that the executive action likely amounted to a fundamental restructuring of the federal government — an action historically requiring congressional authorization. The Ninth Circuit declined to disturb the injunction. The Administration then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court through what is commonly called its “shadow docket.”

The Court’s Decision

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees decided an emergency application for a stay of a district court’s preliminary injunction that had blocked implementation of EO No. 14210. The Court’s decision was brief:

The District Court’s injunction was based on its view that [EO No. 14210], and a … memorandum … implementing that Executive Order are unlawful. 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. We express no view on the legal­ity of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memoran­dum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegal­ity of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.

Practically speaking, the decision means that the Trump Administration may proceed with its plans to reorganize the government in parallel to litigation before the district court.

Justice Sotomayor, concurring, underscored that the EO and memorandum both required agencies to act “consistent with applicable law,” and that the plans themselves were not before the Court. She emphasized that the district court remained free to consider the legality of specific agency actions.

Over the course of a 15-page dissent, Justice Jackson critiqued the Court’s use of the “shadow docket” in this case and others. Justice Jackson argued that the Court’s intervention was premature and unwarranted, given the fact-intensive nature of the dispute and the district court’s thorough findings. Justice Jackson highlighted the historical practice of presidents seeking congressional authorization for major reorganizations and warned that the Court’s stay risked enabling an unprecedented and potentially unlawful restructuring of the federal government without legislative approval.

Why the “Shadow Docket” Matters

The so-called “shadow docket,” that is, the Supreme Court’s handling of emergency applications and other summary decisions outside its regular merits docket, has become a focal point of legal and public scrutiny in recent years. Traditionally, the shadow docket was reserved for matters like stays of execution or administrative orders. However, recent years have seen the Court increasingly willing to issue consequential rulings through the “shadow docket” process, occasionally resulting in criticism from justices themselves. (For more, see our discussion of Ohio v. EPA here.) Critics argue that short-circuiting decisions preempts the adversarial process and can result in decisions that are less transparent and predictable.

The Court’s use of the shadow docket in this matter was restrained compared to some recent high-profile interventions. The Court did not resolve the underlying merits or make new law; rather, it temporarily stayed a lower court injunction to maintain the status quo pending further review.

Justice Jackson’s dissent, however, reflects at least one justice’s broader anxieties about the shadow docket’s potential to undermine careful lower court fact-finding, and to enable significant legal changes without the benefit of full briefing, oral argument, and reasoned opinions. She warns that the Court’s willingness to grant emergency relief in high-stakes, fact-dependent disputes risks eroding the traditional deference owed to district courts and the deliberative process that underpins the Court’s legitimacy. This is at least Justice Jackson’s second dissent covering “shadow docket” issues; she wrote a similar dissent in the June decision in Social Security Administration v. AFSCME decision relating to EO No. 14158, which gave DOGE broad access to governmental records.

Members of the firm’s Environmental, Energy & Cleantech, and Environmental, Social & Governance teams regularly monitor court decisions of interest to the regulated community.