Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to halt a judicial order blocking mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The Justice Department's request came after San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale federal layoffs, known as " reductions in force," in a May 22 ruling siding with a group of unions, non-profit groups and local governments that challenged the administration.
The case involves the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, among others.
Controlling the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in the filing.
"The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority.
The Supreme Court requested a response by the plaintiffs in the case to the administration's filing by June 9.
Trump directed federal agencies in February to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" as part of his administration's restructuring plans.
Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing.
"As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote.
Illston on May 9 had initially blocked about 20 agencies from making mass layoffs for two weeks and ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs. She continued most of that relief in her May 22 ruling. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the Trump administration's request to halt the judge's ruling.
The 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit.
"The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations."
Trump's administration has sought relief from the Supreme Court in a growing number of cases following rulings by lower courts impeding various policies since he returned to office in January.
The case involves the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, among others.
Controlling the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in the filing.
"The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority.
The Supreme Court requested a response by the plaintiffs in the case to the administration's filing by June 9.
Trump directed federal agencies in February to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" as part of his administration's restructuring plans.
Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing.
"As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote.
Illston on May 9 had initially blocked about 20 agencies from making mass layoffs for two weeks and ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs. She continued most of that relief in her May 22 ruling. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the Trump administration's request to halt the judge's ruling.
The 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit.
"The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations."
Trump's administration has sought relief from the Supreme Court in a growing number of cases following rulings by lower courts impeding various policies since he returned to office in January.
You may also like
Continuously taking steps to promote use of eco-alternatives to single-use plastic items, India stands committed to ambitious climate action: Bhupender Yadav
Psychic dubbed 'Japan's Baba Vanga' issues terrifying prediction for 2030
Love Island to show sex scenes for first time ever - as Islanders divided by new rule
BJP MP Brij Lal demands Sindoor Memorial for Pahalgam terror attack victims
Mumbai-Pune Expressway To Be Expanded Into 10-Lane Superhighway To Ease Traffic Woes
