Supreme Court Issues Emergency Ruling in Favor of Trump Administration
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration permission to continue employing several thousand federal workers currently in their probationary period, while legal proceedings continue in lower courts over the legality of the administration’s downsizing efforts—marking yet another recent legal win for the White House.
This ruling nullifies a previous decision from a lower court that had mandated the reinstatement of more than 16,000 such employees.
While the Supreme Court has not delivered a final verdict on whether these staff members will be allowed to retain their positions, the interim ruling is expected to significantly affect both the workers and federal agencies, according to the New York Times.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented but did not provide an explanation. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern over the Court deciding such a “significant question” via an emergency appeal.
This decision marks another legal success for the Trump administration tied to a series of recent executive actions. However, like previous rulings, it is considered “technical and tentative.” The Court emphasized that its emergency order will stand as the underlying case proceeds through the judicial system.
The case centers around a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal judge in California. That ruling ordered the government to rehire over 16,000 probationary employees who had been terminated from agencies including the Pentagon, Treasury, Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and Interior.
Judge William H. Alsup of the Northern District of California, in his opinion, acknowledged that “each federal agency has the statutory authority to hire and fire its employees, even at scale, subject to certain safeguards.”
This Supreme Court ruling is the second time in a week that the justices have ruled in favor of the Trump administration.
In another related case, a federal judge canceled a scheduled hearing on Tuesday regarding the administration’s use of an 18th-century law to expedite deportations of Venezuelan nationals after the Supreme Court’s decision came down in favor of Trump.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a minute order Tuesday morning announcing that the afternoon hearing was vacated. The Supreme Court’s opinion stated that the “appropriate venue for such proceedings is the Southern District of Texas,” or wherever the individuals subject to potential deportation are currently detained.
The case focuses on the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, an immigration statute passed in 1798, to facilitate swift removal of Venezuelan migrants, including individuals linked to the Tren de Aragua gang.
Last month, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion in D.C. District Court requesting a temporary halt to these deportations. Judge Boasberg granted the motion, finding that the planned removals could cause “irreparable” harm under the administration’s timeline.
An appeals court later affirmed Boasberg’s order, intensifying the legal standoff with the Trump administration.
That temporary restraining order remained active until Monday night, when the Supreme Court issued an emergency opinion siding with the president.
Since its enactment 228 years ago, the Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times—in the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II—before this recent application by the Trump administration.
Judge Boasberg had been overseeing the legal review of the administration’s decision to use the law for deporting Venezuelans.
In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that migrants facing deportation under the statute are entitled to due process and “the right to judicial review.”
The majority opinion stressed that such individuals must be allowed a court hearing prior to removal and be given adequate advance notice. As the justices wrote, detainees “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”