New York v. McMahon (DOGE Access 2025)
Case Overview
Twenty-one states sued to stop the Trump administration's elimination of roughly half the Department of Education's workforce through a mass reduction in force, a move that effectively transferred core statutory functions out of the agency without congressional authorization. The district court found the states were likely to succeed, calling the RIF likely unlawful, with no coherent basis for gutting a department Congress created by statute. The First Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal, leaving the administration in the uncomfortable position of being legally required to maintain a department it has publicly committed to abolishing.
Legal Issues
The Application
The administration eliminated half of DOE's workforce through mass RIF, effectively transferring statutory functions outside the agency. The district court found this action lacked coherent legal authority and violated the APA. The First Circuit refused to stay the injunction, leaving the administration legally bound to maintain the department.
The Conclusion
The district court found the states likely to succeed on the merits, determining the RIF is likely unlawful. The First Circuit's refusal to stay the injunction means the reduction in force remains enjoined pending appeal.
Overview
Twenty-one states sued to stop the Trump administration's elimination of roughly half the Department of Education's workforce through a mass reduction in force, a move that effectively transferred core statutory functions out of the agency without congressional authorization. The district court found the states were likely to succeed, calling the RIF likely unlawful, with no coherent basis for gutting a department Congress created by statute. The First Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal, leaving the administration in the uncomfortable position of being legally required to maintain a department it has publicly committed to abolishing.
Issue
Whether the Trump administration's mass reduction in force eliminating approximately half of the Department of Education's workforce and transferring core statutory functions outside the agency without congressional authorization violates the Administrative Procedure Act and separation of powers principles.
Rule
Executive agencies lack authority to eliminate core statutory functions or transfer them outside the agency without congressional authorization. Agency actions must have a coherent legal basis and cannot circumvent statutory schemes Congress has established.
Analysis
The administration eliminated half of DOE's workforce through mass RIF, effectively transferring statutory functions outside the agency. The district court found this action lacked coherent legal authority and violated the APA. The First Circuit refused to stay the injunction, leaving the administration legally bound to maintain the department.
Conclusion
The district court found the states likely to succeed on the merits, determining the RIF is likely unlawful. The First Circuit's refusal to stay the injunction means the reduction in force remains enjoined pending appeal.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support