Supreme Court allows Trump to proceed with firing plans, federal government reorg

The decision marks another victory for Trump at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to move forward with an executive order mandating a restructure of federal agencies and mass layoffs of federal workers.

In a two paragraph unsigned order, the court explained that it was lifting a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in California because "the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and [OMB] memorandum are lawful."

The court noted, however, that the justices "express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF [reduction in force] and Reorganization Plan produces or approved" by the administration under Trump's direction. "Those plans are not before this Court," it said.

The decision, another victory for Trump at the Supreme Court, allows the government to begin taking steps to dramatically overhaul 21 agencies and departments, including the departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Energy, Treasury and State.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief statement concurring with the court's decision, emphasized that the legality of the administration's plans themselves has not yet been answered.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissent in the matter. In a 15-page opinion, the junior justice called the decision "not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless."

The coalition that brought the case -- which includes labor unions, non-profit organizations and cities and counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas and Washington -- called the Supreme Court's decision a disappointment.

"Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution," the coalition said in a statement. "While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."