WASHINGTON, July 15 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to effectively dismantle the Department of Education, delivering a significant victory to President Donald Trump’s effort to reduce the federal role in public education and return authority to the states.
In a brief, unsigned order, the high court overturned a lower court injunction that had reinstated nearly 1,400 federal employees laid off as part of the department’s downsizing. The order also cleared the path for key education responsibilities to be transferred to other federal agencies. The case remains active in lower courts.
The court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. Justice Sotomayor, in a sharply worded opinion, warned that the decision “will unleash untold harm,” and said it hands the president “the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out.”
“Lifting the injunction,” she wrote, “delays or denies educational opportunities and leaves students vulnerable to discrimination, sexual assault, and other civil rights violations without the federal oversight Congress intended.”
The move stems from Trump’s March 20 executive order calling for the closure of the Department of Education “to the maximum extent” permitted by law, in what he described as a return to local control. “We’re going to be returning education, very simply, back to the states where it belongs,” he said at the time.
Trump pledged that essential services would remain intact, including Pell Grants and funding for disadvantaged students and children with disabilities. But he ordered those services to be redistributed—assigning the department’s $1.6 trillion student loan program to the Small Business Administration and transferring special education oversight to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Although a complete shutdown would require an act of Congress, Education Secretary Linda McMahon launched a major restructuring in March that halved the department’s workforce. She called the Supreme Court’s ruling “a significant win for students and families.”
“The U.S. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education,” McMahon said in a post on social media.
Critics warned the decision could weaken enforcement of civil rights protections in schools and delay federal funding for low-income districts and students with special needs. Plaintiffs in the case, including 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts, and teachers’ unions, argued that dismantling the department would compromise its ability to disburse aid and enforce protections, especially for vulnerable student populations.
“Today’s decision dealt a devastating blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, the legal group representing several plaintiffs. “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.”
The Education Department, established by Congress in 1979, is charged with enforcing civil rights in schools, tracking student outcomes, managing federal college loan programs, and allocating aid to disadvantaged districts. Though federal law bars it from controlling curriculum or staffing, critics—largely from the GOP—have long portrayed the department as bloated and redundant.
The legal battle began after U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, a Biden appointee, ruled in May that the Trump administration’s mass layoffs would “likely cripple the department,” ordering the reinstatement of fired workers and blocking the redistribution of responsibilities to other agencies.
On June 4, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined the administration’s request to lift that injunction. Monday’s Supreme Court action reversed that pause, allowing the downsizing to proceed while lower courts continue to weigh the underlying legality of Trump’s order.
Opponents say the loss of federal oversight could undermine efforts to combat discrimination, ensure equal access, and support students through civil rights enforcement, data analysis, and financial aid programs. As the legal case advances, the future of the department—and the federal government’s role in public education—remains uncertain.
