The Supreme Court delivered a decisive victory for the Trump administration this week, removing a judicial roadblock that had temporarily stalled President Donald J. Trump's efforts to streamline the bloated federal bureaucracy.

The high court struck down an injunction imposed by a Clinton-appointed judge in San Francisco that had blocked the administration’s push to reduce the size of the federal workforce. The injunction had been in place since May, following legal challenges by several government employee unions who claimed that the mass layoffs were unlawful.

At the heart of the case was an executive order signed by President Trump in February as part of his Department of Government Efficiency initiative. The directive instructed agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law.” But predictably, entrenched union interests and activist judges sought to derail the reform effort.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston initially sided with the unions, asserting that Trump’s plan amounted to an executive overreach without legislative approval. Her ruling blocked 21 federal agencies from implementing any workforce reductions.

Illston’s decision was later upheld by the ultra-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling, further stalling the administration’s agenda.

But on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court decisively intervened. In a brief but powerful three-paragraph order, the justices lifted the injunction, noting the Trump administration is likely to prevail in the ongoing litigation. The unsigned order reportedly came down 8-1.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred, admitting that the executive order explicitly requires agencies to act “consistent with applicable law.” However, she emphasized that the actual reorganization plans themselves were not being evaluated at this stage.

The sole dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who penned a lengthy 15-page opinion steeped in liberal angst. She warned that the order would unleash the President’s so-called “wrecking ball” on the federal bureaucracy, alleging that the move usurped Congress’s role.

In her dissent, Jackson wrote, “While the President no doubt has the authority to manage the Executive Branch, our system does not allow the President to rewrite laws on his own under the guise of that authority.”

The Supreme Court, however, appears to disagree. The case will now return to Judge Illston’s court, where the administration’s specific reduction plans will be reviewed to ensure they align with federal law—a process already anticipated by the executive order itself.

This latest ruling follows another major Supreme Court win for President Trump just last month, when the justices ruled 6-3 that federal district judges lack the authority to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, rebuked Jackson’s legal reasoning as both misguided and unconstitutional.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote.

In a striking rebuttal, Barrett reminded her colleagues that judicial power is not unchecked: “Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law. That goes for judges too.”

President Trump’s victory reaffirms a central tenet of his second term—returning accountability and efficiency to Washington by shrinking a sprawling, unelected bureaucracy that has long resisted the will of the people.