Supreme Court Split: Sotomayor Backs Trump Workforce Cuts, Jackson Dissents

In a striking 8-1 Supreme Court order on Tuesday, a rift among the liberal justices emerged over President Donald Trump’s push to downsize the federal workforce. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, typically aligned with progressive causes, broke ranks with her colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, offering a rare concurrence with the majority that greenlit Trump’s executive order for large-scale reductions in force (RIFs).

Sotomayor’s stance was clear: while she shares Jackson’s concern about presidential overreach in restructuring federal agencies, she found Trump’s directive to be within legal bounds. She noted that the order mandates agencies to act ‘consistent with applicable law,’ a point reinforced by a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. To Sotomayor, this was enough to uphold the decision—at least for now.

Jackson, however, penned a fiery 15-page dissent, decrying the Court’s eagerness to endorse what she called a ‘legally dubious’ move by the administration. She argued that a lower court’s pause on further cuts was a necessary safeguard, accusing her fellow justices of prioritizing political expediency over principle. Her words carry the weight of frustration, reflecting a deeper unease about the erosion of congressional authority over federal jobs.

This Supreme Court order, issued on an emergency basis, is temporary and stems from a lawsuit by labor organizations and nonprofits challenging Trump’s cuts as an infringement on Congress’s funding powers. While the Court sidestepped ruling on the legality of actual job losses, the decision paves the way for the administration to press forward as the case moves to the Ninth Circuit. Already, thousands of government employees have faced layoffs or accepted buyouts under Trump’s broader mission to streamline federal operations.

What’s at stake here isn’t just bureaucratic headcount—it’s a fundamental question of who gets to shape the government’s structure. As this legal battle unfolds, the tension between efficiency and oversight will only intensify.