WASHINGTON, DC – A Supreme Court ruling from earlier in July handed President Donald Trump an ostensible victory regarding efforts to minimize government spending by way of cutting down the federal government workforce under the authority of the Executive branch.
Yet, while the Trump administration sees the ruling as a victory, Democrats and sympathetic entities are characterizing the ruling as unleashing the president’s proverbial “wrecking ball.”
On July 8th, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling pertaining to the ongoing litigation in the lower courts challenging President Trump’s efforts to slash federal spending via downsizing various federal agencies. In the unsigned opinion, the court gave the president license to carry on with his agenda while the lower courts contemplate the legal challenges brought forth by President Trump’s critics.
Without outright asserting whether the president was swinging outside of his proverbial confines constrained within the Executive branch or not, the Supreme Court merely lifted a previous injunction imposed this past May by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California which prevented President Trump from enacting any sort of mass layoffs after federal workers and their supporters filed suit against the administration.
In the 8-1 ruling favoring the president, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson served as the only dissenting opinion on the matter, characterizing the opposing majority’s opinion as being tantamount to unleashing “the president's wrecking ball” in her 15-page diatribe. Justice Jackson’s sentiments are mirrored by the president’s critics, with an amalgamation of nonprofits, unions and the ilk who originally brought forth the suit characterizing the Supreme Court’s latest ruling as having, “dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
Since President Trump took office in January, he’s made it abundantly clear he intends to cut down federal spending by targeting perceived waste existing within federal agencies like the Department of Commerce, State, V.A., Treasury and numerous others – and followed through with said promises within weeks of taking office.
While it is undeniable that such agencies ultimately fall under the supervision and de facto direction of the Executive branch, the parties who filed suit against the Trump Administration challenging the layoff efforts assert that the president must consult Congress before drastically restructuring said agencies.
Despite the Supreme Court’s reluctance to issue a definitive ruling regarding the legality of the Trump administration’s efforts, the aforementioned unsigned majority opinion did concede President Trump is poised “to succeed” in the overall legal battle, framing the president’s restructuring endeavors as likely falling under the powers available to the Executive branch.
The White House sees the recent Supreme Court ruling as a “victory” to be celebrated, characterizing the court’s opinion as affording the necessary latitude for President Trump to enact his promised vision of creating “efficiency across the federal government.”
Yet, while the Trump administration sees the ruling as a victory, Democrats and sympathetic entities are characterizing the ruling as unleashing the president’s proverbial “wrecking ball.”
On July 8th, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling pertaining to the ongoing litigation in the lower courts challenging President Trump’s efforts to slash federal spending via downsizing various federal agencies. In the unsigned opinion, the court gave the president license to carry on with his agenda while the lower courts contemplate the legal challenges brought forth by President Trump’s critics.
Without outright asserting whether the president was swinging outside of his proverbial confines constrained within the Executive branch or not, the Supreme Court merely lifted a previous injunction imposed this past May by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California which prevented President Trump from enacting any sort of mass layoffs after federal workers and their supporters filed suit against the administration.
In the 8-1 ruling favoring the president, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson served as the only dissenting opinion on the matter, characterizing the opposing majority’s opinion as being tantamount to unleashing “the president's wrecking ball” in her 15-page diatribe. Justice Jackson’s sentiments are mirrored by the president’s critics, with an amalgamation of nonprofits, unions and the ilk who originally brought forth the suit characterizing the Supreme Court’s latest ruling as having, “dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
Since President Trump took office in January, he’s made it abundantly clear he intends to cut down federal spending by targeting perceived waste existing within federal agencies like the Department of Commerce, State, V.A., Treasury and numerous others – and followed through with said promises within weeks of taking office.
While it is undeniable that such agencies ultimately fall under the supervision and de facto direction of the Executive branch, the parties who filed suit against the Trump Administration challenging the layoff efforts assert that the president must consult Congress before drastically restructuring said agencies.
Despite the Supreme Court’s reluctance to issue a definitive ruling regarding the legality of the Trump administration’s efforts, the aforementioned unsigned majority opinion did concede President Trump is poised “to succeed” in the overall legal battle, framing the president’s restructuring endeavors as likely falling under the powers available to the Executive branch.
The White House sees the recent Supreme Court ruling as a “victory” to be celebrated, characterizing the court’s opinion as affording the necessary latitude for President Trump to enact his promised vision of creating “efficiency across the federal government.”
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments