After a months-long constitutional battle that pitted the President against nearly half the states in the nation, the Supreme Court has finally weighed in on the future of the Department of Education.
The fight began with a presidential vow to shutter the agency, followed by the dismissal of thousands of its employees—actions a lower court deemed an illegal attempt to dismantle a department without congressional authority. The resulting Supreme Court decision has now set the stage for a new phase in this profound conflict over the limits of executive power and the President’s duty to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed.
The Supreme Court has given a temporary green light to the Trump administration to proceed with mass layoffs at the Department of Education, a critical step in the President’s stated goal to shutter the department entirely. While the administration frames this as a move toward efficiency, this action has ignited a profound constitutional firestorm.
This is not a simple story about downsizing the federal workforce. It is a fundamental test of the President’s constitutional duty. It forces us to ask a critical question: Can a president “faithfully execute” the laws that create and sustain a federal department while simultaneously working to dismantle it from within? The answer will have lasting consequences for the separation of powers and the nature of executive authority itself.
A De Facto Dismantling?
The conflict began in March, when Education Secretary Linda McMahon, acting on an executive order from the President, initiated layoffs targeting half of the department’s workforce. The stated long-term goal was to close the department completely. In response, twenty Democratic-led states sued, arguing that the layoffs had rendered the department incapable of performing its legally required duties, such as certifying universities for federal student aid.
A lower federal court judge agreed, finding that the administration’s “true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute” from Congress. He blocked the layoffs. Now, in a 6-3 emergency ruling, the Supreme Court has paused that judge’s order, allowing the administration to proceed with the firings while the case is appealed. The administration insists it will “follow the law” and work with Congress for a final, orderly closure. But critics argue that by the time Congress acts, there may be no department left to close.
The President’s Constitutional Duty to “Take Care”
At the heart of this dispute is one of the President’s most important and least understood constitutional obligations. Article II, Section 3 requires that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is not an optional suggestion; it is a binding duty. The Department of Education, and all of its functions, exists because of laws passed by Congress. The President does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally nullify those laws or to render them meaningless by administrative action.
The argument made by the states is that by firing the very people needed to administer federal education programs, the administration is failing its duty to “take care” that these laws are executed. From this perspective, the mass layoffs are not an act of good governance, but an unconstitutional attempt to achieve by executive fiat what the President has not yet achieved through the legislative process: the elimination of a federal department.
A “Lawlessness” the Court Will Not Check—For Now
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to lift the lower court’s injunction was met with a fiery dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who called the majority’s action “indefensible.”
“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.
Her dissent frames the central constitutional dilemma. The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling is not a final decision on the merits of the case. However, by allowing the layoffs to proceed, the Court permits the very “dismantling” that the lower court sought to prevent. It highlights the immense power of the high court to shape policy through its handling of these emergency appeals, often before a full hearing can take place.
This case is about far more than the future of the Department of Education. It sets a powerful precedent. If a president can effectively neutralize a federal agency by firing its staff while awaiting formal approval from Congress, it creates a playbook for any future administration to target any department it ideologically opposes—be it the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, or others. The President’s constitutional duty to execute the law could be twisted into an unchecked power to effectively nullify it from within, a result the framers of the Constitution surely never intended.