In Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, a case on its emergency docket that could have implications for the CFPB, the Supreme Court issued a brief opinion allowing the Trump Administration to fire tens of thousands of workers at 19 different federal government agencies while appeals over the firings continue.
The CFPB is not among the agencies involved in the Supreme Court case, but the case could provide a hint about the next developments in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, a case in which the Trump Administration seeks to fire more than 1,400 bureau employees. 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.
“We are not among the 19 plaintiff agencies,” a National Treasury Employees Union spokesperson said in a statement, as reported by Bloomberg News. “We are not directly impacted. We also have our own litigation which currently prohibits [reductions in force, or RIFs] and firings at least until the D.C. Circuit issues its decision.”
In the Supreme Court case, the Court did not issue a signed opinion, but did grant an emergency appeal from the administration, which was seeking approval to enforce a February 11 Executive Order that allowed agencies to implement large-scale Reductions in Force.
The decision lifts an injunction that had been issued by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She had blocked the firings because the administration had not consulted with Congress before issuing its plans.
The Supreme Court’s majority said, that “we express no view on the legality of any” agency plans for firings or agency restructuring. “Those plans are not before the court,” the Justices said.
The Justices said that Trump has the power to issue and enforce the Executive Order.
As typically happens with cases on the emergency docket, the Supreme Court did not announce the votes of the individual justices. However, there is a lengthy dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote that President Trump should have worked with Congress on the downsizing plan.
“Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions,” she wrote. “The President sharply departed from that settled practice on February 11, 2025, however, by allegedly arrogating this power to himself.”
The case had been filed by unions representing federal employees, including the American Federation of Government Employees, as well as several cities and counties.
The CFPB case is on a separate track. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has upheld a temporary injunction issued by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibiting the CFPB from firing more than 1,400 employees, leaving only about 200 employees at the agency.
Judge Jackson issued the injunction after finding that the CFPB’s mass firings affected more employees than a mass layoff plan that she had attempted to enjoin earlier in the litigation.
In that case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay partially blocking the 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.]