Research and developments It is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the burst of news about law and changes in policies that affect science and scientists today.
The Trump administration can act on its planned restructuring of the federal government, the United States Supreme Court announced in A decision of July 8.
In the decision, the court maintained an order that prohibits the Trump administration from proceeding with mass dismissals of federal workers, including scientists from agencies such as NOAA and EPA. The decision, although temporary, means that the administration is free to continue with valor (RIF) and restructuring efforts in federal agencies.
The decision is the last action in the case of Trump v. American Federation of Government employees. In the case, a coalition of plaintiffs, including labor unions, municipal and regional governments, non -profit organizations and other organizations claim that President Trump in February Executive order ordering federal agencies to make large -scale reductions in force is illegal in the sense that “It goes far beyond the president’s authority to direct, and that such a massive reorganization of federal agencies must be planned in accordance with the law and approved by Congress.” Agu is co-demanding in the case.
“That temporary, practice and reducing preservation of Status Quo’s damage was not a rival for the demonstrated enthusiasm of this court for illuminating the legally doubtful actions of this president in an emergency position.”
In a ruling in May, a federal judge in California extended a two -week break in federal dismissals giving a court orderthat this pause would continue through the conclusion of the case. The Trump administration appealed the decision, but on May 30 it confirmed it on May 30 Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit of the United States. The Trump administration then submitted an emergency application to the Supreme Court.
With the July 8 ruling, the Court is allowing the administration to advance with its restructuring plans described in the February executive order. In the unmarked decision, the Court did not express an opinion on the legality of the RIFs, but reasoned that the Trump administration “is likely to be successful” in its argument that the executive order is legal.
In a lonely dissent, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that any attempt by a president to reorganize the federal government requires the authorization of the Congress, which President Trump did not obtain.
Referring to the pause established in May, Jackson wrote: “That temporary, practice and reducing of the Status Quo damage was not a rival for the demonstrated enthusiasm of this court for illuminating the legally doubtful actions of this president in an emergency position.”
“This ruling will give the Trump demolition team more ideas about the dismissal of critical federal workers, such as regional meteorologists with the National Meteorological Service and climatic scientists in NOAA,” the representative Jamie Raskin, D-Md, wrote, wrote, on Bluesky.
The plaintiffs expressed their disappointment. “This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that the Constitution does not allow to reorganize government functions and dismiss federal mass workers without any approval of the Congress.”
Judges Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the other two members of the liberal wing of the Court, put on the side of the conservative majority in this case. Sotomayor wrote a concurrence in which Jackson agreed that President Trump could not restructure federal agencies “in an inconsistent way with the mandates of Congress”, but discovered that the executive order in question does not direct federal agencies to challenge the law by carrying out the reorganization plans and that the case did not require the court to consider the legality of the plans.
—Grace van deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Personnel writer
These updates are possible through the information of the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or politics are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip to [email protected].
Text © 2025. Agu. CC BY-NC -nd 3.0
Except when indicating otherwise, the images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission of the copyright owner is prohibited.
Related
#Supreme #Court #lets #Trump #continue #mass #shots
