President Donald Trump scored another major victory Thursday as the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the path for his executive order to begin shrinking the bloated federal bureaucracy—through targeted mass layoffs across dozens of agencies.

In a forceful unsigned decision, the justices overturned an activist ruling by Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Illston, who had blocked Trump’s February 13 directive calling for “large-scale reductions in force.” The high court made clear that Illston’s opinion wasn’t grounded in law, but in premature objections to reorganization plans that weren’t even under judicial review.

“Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful — and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied — we grant the application,” the court wrote.

Even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged the court’s reasoning and joined the majority, noting that the district court had acted prematurely: “The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage,” she wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented bitterly, claiming the ruling could allow the president to dismantle massive portions of the federal apparatus. “Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions,” she argued—suggesting the executive branch has no authority to streamline the very agencies it oversees.

But the court wasn’t persuaded. The majority found the administration acted well within its constitutional authority. For President Trump and his supporters, this is a pivotal moment in a broader movement to return power to the people—not unelected bureaucrats.

The Department of Government Efficiency—once under the leadership of Elon Musk—has led the reorganization push, targeting waste, redundancy, and political bias across Washington’s alphabet agencies. Labor unions and leftist activist groups scrambled to sue in an attempt to protect their hold on power, but they may now be facing the end of their decades-long grip on the federal workforce.

Key agencies expected to see cuts include the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Interior, State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, along with the EPA and others.

Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the Supreme Court ruling as a decisive blow against the left’s judicial resistance. “Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump’s authority over federal personnel — another Supreme Court victory thanks to [Justice Department] attorneys,” Bondi posted on X.

“Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before,” she added.

This decision caps a remarkable stretch of wins for President Trump at the high court. Just last month, the Court agreed to hear a potentially landmark case that could deal a death blow to unconstitutional campaign finance restrictions.

In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Trump-backed NRSC, NRCC, and several GOP Senate candidates—including now-Vice President JD Vance—argue that current federal campaign spending limits violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of political free speech.

At the heart of the case is a challenge to the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, a relic of a pre-digital era that caps how much political parties can spend on behalf of individual candidates. Critics say it silences voices, hampers party strategy, and gives a structural advantage to well-funded liberal super PACs.

The Republican petitioners are urging the Court’s 6-3 constitutionalist majority to affirm that political speech includes not just what candidates say—but what their parties are allowed to spend to support them.

With federal campaign spending at an all-time high—$2 billion raised and $1.8 billion spent in the 2024 cycle—this case could redefine the rules of engagement in American elections for decades to come.