In another case that may not auger well for the CFPB staff, the Supreme Court is allowing the Trump Administration to continue dismantling the Education Department, lifting a court order that had required the rehiring of as many as 1,400 employees, about half of the Department’s employees, while a lawsuit challenging the Administration’s firing of those employees is pending.
In McMahon v New York, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order on July 13, 2025 that stays a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that halted the firings. The Department has already sent out notices to those employees being fired.
That ruling followed a brief opinion issued on July 8 allowing the Trump Administration to fire tens of thousands of workers at 21 different federal government agencies while appeals over the firings continue.
The Supreme Court majority gave no reasons for the Education Department ruling.
However, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They said that only Congress has the power to abolish a federal agency.
“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” the three said.
The CFPB is not among the agencies involved in the Supreme Court cases, but the cases could be a harbinger about the next developments in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought. In that case the Union is challenging an attempt by the Trump Administration to fire more than 1,400 bureau employees, leaving only about 200 employees at the agency. Planned layoffs at the CFPB are held up by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which could decide any day whether to continue the delay imposed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia..
In the CFPB case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals initially issued a stay partially blocking Judge Jackson’s ruling, giving the Trump Administration some flexibility, saying the agency could fire those employees who, after “a particularized assessment,” were determined to be non-essential for CFPB operations. The agency’s assertion that it had conducted such assessments did not persuade Judge Jackson. The appeals court subsequently lifted the stay, thus re-imposing Jackson’s injunction blocking the firings.
[View source.]
