The US Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted an injunction that had blocked President Donald Trump from implementing sweeping reforms aimed at restructuring the federal government.

The case centers on Executive Order 14210, signed in February, which directs federal agencies to undertake “large-scale reductions in force” and submit reorganization plans that could eliminate or consolidate existing agencies.

In April, Federal labor unions and advocacy groups challenged the order, arguing it amounted to an unprecedented unilateral dismantling of the federal government in the absence of required congressional authorization.

The following month, Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning:

The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch… Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office.

In June, the Trump administration filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to stay the injunction, arguing that Article 2 of the US Constitution grants the president inherent authority to control personnel decisions within the Executive Branch. The administration argued that the district court’s injunction violated core separation of powers principles by treating routine personnel management as requiring special statutory permission from Congress.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the Trump administration, finding the president was “likely to succeed” with its argument that the order was lawful. The court was careful to note, however, that in lifting the injunction, it was not opining on the legality of the reorganization play.

As stated by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a concurring opinion:

The President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates… Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’… The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a scathing dissent, arguing the majority improperly overruled detailed factual findings and warning of “enormous real-world consequences” including threats to veteran services, food safety, and environmental protections. Jackson’s dissent emphasized that federal government reorganization has historically required congressional approval, citing how eight presidents since the 1930s obtained specific legislative authorization before restructuring agencies. She argued the Court should have deferred to the district court’s extensive factual findings.

The dissent also warned of broader democratic harms, arguing that allowing the president to unilaterally dismantle federal programs created by Congress would undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Jackson accused the majority of showing “demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”

The stay allows implementation to continue while the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the underlying legal challenge.