Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tore into her colleagues over their summary decision on Tuesday to lift lower court orders that blocked President Donald Trump from conducting mass firings of the federal workforce.
"Historical practice ... confirms that, while Presidents possess some discretion to reduce federal employment, they may not fundamentally restructure the Federal Government all on their own," wrote Jackson, who frequently spars with the court's right-wing majority on rulings that hand new powers to the Trump administration.
After noting that there was "extensive evidence from the plaintiffs and scant submissions from the Government," Jackson pointed out that it made no sense to allow Trump to move forward with firings, before the lower courts have even reached an opinion on whether they are legal.
"We ... faced the question whether to override the judgments of the two courts below by allowing the President to proceed immediately with implementing his restructuring plans," wrote Jackson. "To answer 'yes' — as the Court now does — is to allow an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government to continue apace, causing irreparable harm before courts can determine whether the President has the authority to engage in the actions he proposes."
"In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless," she continued. "Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts — including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities. I see no basis to conclude that the District Court erred — let alone clearly so — in finding that the President is attempting to fundamentally restructure the Federal Government."
While Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Jackson's central point that Trump doesn't have the power to remake the federal workforce unilaterally, she took a more nuanced view of the matter, saying that because Trump's executive order directs agencies to plan for the layoffs "consistent with applicable law," and because the majority's decision still leaves lower courts "free to consider" whether what the administration subsequently does is illegal, it's reasonable to issue the stay.