On February 11, 2025, President Donald Trump had issued Executive Order 14210 mandating a “critical transformation” of the Federal Government by “eliminating or consolidating” existing agencies and ordering agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force” (90 Fed. Reg. 9669,9670).
The American Federation of Government Employees filed lawsuit in the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California, located in San Francisco, challenging the president’s authority to implement Executive Order 14210.
On May 22, 2025, United States District Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton nominee, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of Executive Order 14210 and the joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management (February 26, 2025) because, in her view, they were unlawful (case No. 3:25-cv-3698).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to upset the temporary injunction.
Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama Nominee, referred the government’s emergency petition to the Court.
Supreme Court
On July 8, 2025, seven Supreme Court Justices in Donald J. Trump, et al v American Federation of Government Employees, et al, No. 24A117, only took two-paragraphs to stay the injunction of the District Court and permit the Trump administration to implement its plans to “transform” the Federal Government.
With the injunction dissolved, the case is returned to the District Court.
Justice Jackson
Justice Ketanji Jackson, a Biden nominee, wrote a 15-page dissent that displayed her attitude, perhaps even arrogance, towards the U.S. legal system, the other justices, and President Trump. Here are a few quotes from her dissent:
“The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered the applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that executive branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring until this legal challenge to the president’s authority to undertake such action could be litigated…”
“But that temporary harm-reducing preservation (the injunction) of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions…” (emphasis added).
“In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is happening on the ground...”
“What is at issue here is whether Executive Order 14210 effects a massive restructuring of the Federal Government (the likes of which have historically required Congress’s approval), on one hand, or minor workforce reductions consistent with existing law, on the other hand. One needs facts to answer that critical question…”
“Put differently, from its lofty perch far from the facts or evidence, this Court lacks the capacity to fully evaluate, much less responsibly override, reasoned lower court factfinding…”
“But, today, this Court once again ignores all this (the Rules of Civil Procedure) while casually discarding 55 pages of evidence-based lower court reasoning…”
“Has it (the Supreme Court) opted to simply ignore the well-settled deferential standards of review?...”
“The Court’s disregard for the District Court’s factfinding would be troubling enough when viewed through a mere procedural lens. But it is all the more puzzling, and ultimately disheartening, given the extraordinary risk of harm that today’s ruling immediately unleashes…”
“As the Ninth Circuit concluded, the implementation will be immensely painful to the general public, causing great harm that includes ‘proliferating food-borne disease,’ perpetuating ‘hazardous environmental conditions, eviscerating disaster loan services for local businesses, and drastically reducing the provision of healthcare and other services to our nations veterans…’”
‘What one person (or president) might call bureaucratic bloat is a farmer’s prospect for a healthy crop, a coal miner’s chance to breathe free from black lung, or a preschooler’s opportunity to learn in a safe environment.”
“Yet for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.
“In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
According to Google, “a hubristic person is characterized by excessive pride, arrogance, and an overestimation of their own abilities and importance. This can lead to disregard for others’ opinion, a belief that they are above the rules and a tendency to make poor decisions, often with negative consequences for themselves and those around them.”
Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama nominee, took a single paragraph to concur with the seven other Justices because “Executive Order 14210 directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law,’ and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much. The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.”
Conclusion
Justice Sotomayor agrees with the other seven justices that the basis for Justice Jackson’s dissent is not in the record, or to be less kind, are only in the imagination of a hubristic Justice.
Justice Amy Barrett wrote in Trump v CASA, No. 24A884, “Justice Jackson decries an Imperial Executive while embracing an Imperial Judiciary.”
The Democratic Party is completely void of ideas and policies to help Americans. This is the reason they tried to import 20+ million illegally into the US and then cater to their every need once they got here. They have only one recourse against President Trump and his vision to restore the United States and that is to judge shop to find friendly districts to try and slow his progress down. My greatest hope is that the Supreme Court fast tracks all of these and restores the rule of law promptly.
Justice Jackson’s descent was just another glaring example of how the left displays open distain for America and it’s founding documents and the main reason that President Biden or should I say his shadow handlers chose her.
Unfortunately, Sotomayor, Barrett and Jackson have done nothing but set back feminism. They embody every reason ever given as to why there should be a glass ceiling.