Up next in 10
Supreme Court Backs Trump's Federal Workforce Cuts
1 views
Jul 9, 2025
Discover how the latest Supreme Court decision could impact your federal career. This pivotal ruling paves the way for potential changes in reduction in force (RIF) actions and agency reorganizations across the federal workforce. In this video, we break down what federal employees need to know, what to expect next, and how it could affect your job security and career trajectory. Stay informed and prepared—watch now to get the key insights you need! Related Articles Supreme Court Greenlights Trump Administration’s Federal Workforce Cuts https://www.fedsmith.com/2025/07/08/supreme-court-greenlights-trump-administrations-federal-workforce-cuts/ RIFs Are Coming: What Federal Employees Need to Know About the Upcoming Workforce Optimization Initiative https://www.fedsmith.com/2025/02/26/rifs-are-coming-what-federal-employees-need-to-know-about-upcoming-workforce-optimization/ Chapters 0:00 Introduction 1:11 Details of Supreme Court Decision 1:53 Implications of the Supreme Court Decision for Federal Employees 3:07 Question About Future RIFs 3:59 Can You Appeal a RIF Notice? 4:31 Can You Fight a RIF in Court? 5:37 Dissent by Justice Jackson
View Video Transcript
0:00
If you're watching this video, you're
0:01
probably a federal employee. And to say
0:04
that 2025 has been a a year of
0:07
confusion, uh, surprises, and
0:11
consternation is probably an
0:12
understatement. Purpose of this video is
0:15
to try and clear up a couple of items
0:17
that you may be wondering about based
0:19
upon a recent order that came out from
0:22
the Supreme Court uh, just this month.
0:24
yesterday. As a matter of fact, from the
0:26
date this is being recorded,
0:29
the Supreme Court issued an order. It's
0:31
not a decision in the usual sense. It
0:33
doesn't have a signature from a
0:36
particular justice. Uh and if you look
0:39
at the article or the order itself,
0:41
you'll find that it's
0:43
17 18 pages long. And that's a bit of a
0:46
surprise for a decision like this or an
0:48
order like this. But the reason for that
0:50
is most of it is a disscent from Justice
0:52
Jackson. I'll get into that more in a
0:55
minute. We just wanted to clear up a
0:57
couple of things that may help you
0:58
decide about your future in the
1:00
government, help you make decisions that
1:02
could affect your career, and to help
1:04
you make the right decision for you.
1:06
Because as everybody's in a different
1:08
position, only you can decide what's
1:10
best for you. The decision is called
1:13
Trump versus AFGE.
1:15
And what it amounts to is it allows
1:17
large-scale rifts and reorganizations
1:20
throughout the government. The reason
1:22
the order came out and this is according
1:24
to the Supreme Court is that it
1:27
concluded the government is likely to
1:29
succeed on its argument that these
1:32
directives are lawful and therefore it
1:34
lifted an injunction that had been
1:36
issued by a district court. Now the
1:38
directives that it's talking about
1:40
there's an executive order that came out
1:41
on government optimization. Uh there's
1:44
some OPM guidance that came out about
1:46
how to conduct a riffs or what agencies
1:49
should be doing to prepare for riffs and
1:51
that's what's at issue here. You need to
1:54
pay attention to the court statement
1:55
because you're going to be reading
1:57
articles from various organizations and
1:59
they basically say this is unfair. Uh
2:02
it's a threat to democracy. It's all
2:05
kinds of things. The real question is
2:08
what is the legal issue that's involved
2:10
and what's going to happen? The court
2:12
has said in its decision and I would
2:15
take it as they've looked at this case
2:18
and at least on a very quick reaction
2:21
they think that the government is likely
2:23
to prevail uh in this argument to allow
2:26
it to the riffs to go forward. So, as a
2:29
practical matter, what this means is if
2:31
you're in an agency and your agency's
2:33
preparing for a riff, and they probably
2:36
are because OPM told agencies back in
2:39
February to start preparing for riffs
2:42
and reorganization. So, that preparation
2:44
is probably pretty far along. Based on
2:47
this decision that's come out, some
2:50
agencies are probably going to start
2:52
implementing these riffs and these
2:54
reorganizations very quickly. That's
2:56
what you have to plan on. uh there may
2:59
be differences in your agency obviously
3:01
and you can to find out what's going on
3:03
there but for the government as a whole
3:05
riffs are likely to be coming out. One
3:07
of the questions that we're going to get
3:09
and I've already gotten a couple like
3:10
this on the article that was published
3:12
on Smith Fedsmith today and if you go to
3:15
fedsmith.com you'll see that article uh
3:18
you can there's a link to the Supreme
3:20
Court order that's come out and that's
3:22
the order I'm talking about. One of the
3:24
questions that came up is, is the court
3:27
likely to overturn riiffs and
3:29
reorganizations in the near future? And
3:31
a probably the person has read
3:33
statements, arguments, press releases
3:36
coming out from it could be unions,
3:38
other organizations, could be news
3:40
organizations, and they're declaring
3:42
that this decision, this order is
3:45
unfair, it's a threat to democracy, etc.
3:48
Ignore all that. What you need to look
3:50
at is what is the court likely to do?
3:52
How is it likely to affect you? But what
3:54
kind of decision are you going to be
3:55
making in the near future uh with regard
3:58
to your career? First of all, let's look
4:00
at the issue. If you have a riff in your
4:02
agency and you are rift, can you appeal
4:05
the decision that's made and how it
4:07
affects you? The answer is possibly,
4:10
even probably, because there is an
4:12
appeal right to go to the Merit Systems
4:14
Protection Board or the MSPB. It doesn't
4:17
apply to any decision that's made. If
4:20
you're separated, if you're demoted, if
4:22
you're furoughed for more than 30 days,
4:24
you can probably go to the MSPB with an
4:27
appeal and you can make your argument
4:29
and see if you can get it overturned.
4:31
The next question that comes about is,
4:33
can you go back to court? Can you take
4:36
your the agency's decision to riff you
4:39
to a court? Possibly. It's much less
4:42
likely you're going to succeed at that
4:44
level, but you can take it. see what the
4:47
court says. To get a case before a court
4:50
and a riff related action, you'd have to
4:52
show a constitutional violation.
4:56
Doesn't sound like that would be likely.
4:58
Uh but if you think you've got that
5:01
argument, talk to your lawyer, make your
5:03
decision, and move forward. Or you can
5:05
challenge the legality of the executive
5:07
order or the agency reorganization. And
5:10
there's already been a decision, initial
5:12
decision or initial order from that on
5:14
the court. make your decision and then
5:16
make your move. You can also make an
5:20
argument to the court that you're part
5:23
of a class action lawsuit or a union
5:25
litigation. Perhaps that will get you
5:27
somewhere. For most people, what you're
5:30
going to end up going doing is going
5:32
before the MSPB if you're demoted,
5:34
suspended, furlow for more than 30 days.
5:37
Now, some of the people are asking, what
5:39
about this long descent by Justice
5:41
Jackson? How does that play? Well, what
5:44
she said, and this is a quote from her
5:46
decision. In my view, this decision is
5:50
not only truly unfortunate, but also
5:52
hubistic and senseless. Lower court
5:55
judges have their fingers on the pulse
5:57
of what's happening on the ground and
5:59
are indisputably best positioned to
6:02
determine the relevant facts, including
6:04
those that underly fair assessment of
6:06
the merits, harms, inequities. That's a
6:10
pretty strong descent. uh and it's not
6:13
the first strong descent that Justice
6:15
Jackson has come out with. In fact, it's
6:18
led to some dissension on the courts
6:20
that have been the topic of articles by
6:22
legal experts. As an example, Justice
6:26
Barrett, another Supreme Court justice
6:28
in another decision, not this one I'm
6:30
talking about today, but she cited
6:32
Justice Jackson just a few days ago, as
6:35
issuing a disscent on a startling line
6:37
of attack that is tethered neither to
6:39
precedent in the Constitution nor
6:42
frankly to any doctrine whatsoever.
6:45
These are fairly strong statements.
6:47
They've been commented on by some legal
6:49
experts, including some law professors.
6:52
So, I don't know that this descent by
6:53
Justice Jackson, despite its length, uh,
6:57
and despite being on an order and not on
6:59
a final decision of the court, is going
7:02
to have that much of an impact on what
7:04
decision you need to make with regard to
7:06
your future as a federal employee. What
7:08
we do know for now, these riffs are
7:10
likely to go forward. You may have an
7:12
appeal right to the MSPB. You probably
7:15
do because in most cases, if the
7:17
agency's running the riff, something's
7:19
going to happen. And the purpose of the
7:21
riffs is to reduce the size of the
7:23
federal workforce. President Trump made
7:25
made that clear in the fact sheet that
7:27
came out with the executive order and in
7:30
the executive order itself. Pli made
7:32
that comment numerous times running for
7:34
president and he wasn't kidding. He's
7:37
intending to do that. He's moving out to
7:39
do it. So you need to look at what your
7:41
what is your position. Some people,
7:43
particularly if you're a relatively new
7:44
employee, you are much more likely to be
7:47
riffed because your seniority is a whole
7:49
lot less. If you're a veteran, you have
7:51
some preferences. So, your chances of
7:53
being thrown out on the street looking
7:55
for a new job is probably less than it
7:58
is for some other employees. But we've
8:01
been contacted or received notes from
8:03
people that said, "I've been offered a
8:04
job. Should I take it?" We can't advise
8:07
you on that one way or the other. We
8:08
don't know what your future is in the
8:10
government. We don't know what your
8:12
future would be in the private sector,
8:14
but you just need to step back what's
8:16
best for you, best for your family. take
8:18
into account this decision that's come
8:20
out that's allowing the risk to go
8:22
forward. It may be a precursor to the
8:24
future and it may have an impact on how
8:26
you proceed as an employee of the
8:28
federal government. Thanks for watching.
8:31
For more information, check out the
8:33
article on fedsmith.com on this and
8:36
related articles. The decisions coming
8:38
out uh cover a lot of things that
8:40
involve the federal workforce. They're
8:42
confusing. Some of the decisions seem
8:44
contradictory between say the district
8:46
courts, the courts of appeal, the
8:49
supreme court. As we told you in an
8:51
article or in a video also early in the
8:54
year, the initial decisions aren't the
8:56
ones that are final. Probably people,
9:00
conservative, liberal, doesn't make any
9:02
difference, will often choose a district
9:04
court to go to where they think they're
9:05
more likely to get a favorable decision.
9:08
This recent order where the Supreme
9:10
Court lifted the injunction came from a
9:13
court in California. A lot of these
9:15
cases are coming out of California, miss
9:18
Massachusetts, Maryland, DC. That's not
9:20
surprising. What is going to make the
9:23
final decision is when the appeals are
9:26
done, the decisions are issued. That
9:28
won't be f won't be fast. Uh it may take
9:31
a few months. The Supreme Court may not
9:33
issue more decisions till it goes back
9:36
in session this fall. We wish you all
9:38
the best of luck. We hope you make the
9:40
decision best for you and your family.
9:42
Thanks for watching.
#Executive Branch
#Government
#Legal
#Public Policy