For the umpteenth time, the U.S. Supreme Court has done the Trump administration’s bidding. This decision allows for the Biden administration to continue pushing ahead with mass layoffs at the DoE. A federal judge has now ordered the reinstatement of nearly 1,400 workers laid off by the Lockheed cuts. This decision does not bode well for the future of federal educational oversight. This ruling is a huge victory for the Trump administration. It is a preview of their larger long-term campaign to retake federal agencies and reassert much stronger control over U.S. universities.
The Trump administration has already been roundly criticized for efforts to eliminate public housing and other federal agencies. Critics argue that it takes executive power too far. The critics say it would roll back important educational protections put in place by Congress. The administration has sought to gain more influence over university curricula, threatening to withdraw federal funds if institutions do not comply with its directives.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority lifted the previous ruling that halted the layoffs, enabling the administration to transfer essential functions from the Department of Education to state governments. Former President Donald Trump heralded the ruling as a “Major Victory to Parents and Students across the Country,” asserting that it affirms the executive branch’s authority to manage federal agency operations.
Controversy Surrounding Federal Agencies
Yet the Trump administration’s approach to these waters has drawn significant backlash. Others have raised much-needed criticism of the way it paints federal agencies as impediments to its political aims. Quite a few people are seeing this portrayal as an opening shot in a move to rebrand these institutions as strongholds of leftist ideology and bureaucratic inefficiency.
This misguided perception has furthered the cause of those who have long sought to minimize the Department of Education’s role in national education policy. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun recently cautioned that the administration’s moves would “very likely destroy the department.” This quote underscores how all educators and defenders of public education care about what is happening on this exciting front.
In dissenting opinions, justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan expressed that the Supreme Court’s ruling poses a “grave” threat “to our Constitution’s separation of powers.” They emphasized that the Department of Education plays a vital role in ensuring equal access to education and distributing billions in funding to schools and students nationwide.
“As Congress mandated, the Department plays a vital role in this Nation’s education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year.” – Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan
Implications for Higher Education
The ramifications of this ruling are more far-reaching than just preventing layoffs. The Trump administration has previously attempted to tighten the reins on U.S. universities, especially on hot-button issues such as student activism. This includes efforts to crack down on pro-Palestine activism on campuses, which the administration sees as directly against its goals.
By leveraging the prospect of withholding federal funding from any institution that refuses to comply with its wishes, the administration seeks to reassert its control over academia’s curricula. These kinds of actions have triggered often highly politicized court battles over academic freedom and the government’s role in education.
As commentator on educational policy Shihab Rattansi recently said, “the implications of this turn of events are staggering.”
“The Department of Education was set up in 1979 by Congress, and only an act of Congress could shut it down, but instead, what the Trump administration is doing is sacking so many people within the Department of Education that effectively, it is shut down.” – Shihab Rattansi
He noted that if the ongoing litigation restores the employees now laid off, many of them may no longer be in the agency by then. This might produce an informal dissolution of the department, without any formal disbanding order by congressional approval.
Future of Educational Oversight
With these new developments, champions of public education are preparing for an epic court fight. They are absolutely prepared to take the fight back to the Supreme Court. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, an advocacy organization focused on public interest litigation, echoed their pledge to battle for educational equity.
“We will aggressively pursue every legal option as this case proceeds to ensure that all children in this country have access to the public education they deserve.” – Skye Perryman
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a tremendous gift to the Trump administration. It further poses deep constitutional questions relating to the separation of powers between branches of government. Legal scholars are sounding the alarm that this ruling stands to greatly reduce judicial checks on executive power, creating a new precedent for future administrations.
