Emergency application

Federal job cuts

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. American Federation of Government Employees

Granted

No. 24A1174Stay applicationFiled by the federal governmentPresented to Justice KaganFrom United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court granted the request on July 8, 2025: the lower court's ruling is on hold while the appeal continues.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case. Justice Jackson would have ruled the other way.

Filed June 2, 2025Ruled July 8, 202536 days after filing

What's being asked

The federal government asks the Supreme Court to pause a California court order blocking implementation of Executive Order 14210 and an agency memorandum. The dispute concerns plans to reorganize federal agencies and reduce their workforces under that order and memorandum. The government argues that the order and memorandum are lawful.

What the Court did

The Court gave the government emergency help, granting (approving) its request and temporarily pausing the district court’s order. It keeps the order paused through the Ninth Circuit appeal and any timely request for Supreme Court review; agency plans’ legality remains undecided. Justice Sotomayor concurred (agreed with the result for different reasons); Justice Jackson dissented (disagreed with the result).

Concurred in a separate opinion
Dissented
Vote not published

Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately: Sotomayor
Dissenting · 1recorded against the Court's order: Jackson
Vote not published · 7the order does not say how they voted: Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Kagan
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett

The order records the positions of 2 of 9 justices. The Court usually does not say how each justice voted on an emergency application, so the rest are shown as not published.

Half of 82 rulings on applications where the Court asked for a response came 10 to 26 days after filing, and the median was 17 days; this one was ruled on 36 days after filing.

What it means

This temporary ruling does not decide who wins the case or whether the order and memorandum are lawful. The Ninth Circuit appeal continues; the Court said the government was likely to succeed in arguing that the order and memorandum are lawful. No related Supreme Court case on the main legal questions is listed, and no argument was set on this application.

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 24A1174. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 4, 2026

Docket timeline

FiledJun 2, 2025
Application (24A1174) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Application (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Response requestedJun 2, 2025
Response to application (24A1174) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 12 p.m. (EDT), on June 9, 2025.
Docket entryJun 6, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entryJun 6, 2025
Brief amici curiae of Former Government Officials and Advisors filed.
Document 1 (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ResponseJun 9, 2025
Response to application from respondents American Federation of Government Employees, et al. filed.
Response (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entryJun 9, 2025
Brief amici curiae of America's Future, et al. filed.
Document 1 (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ReplyJun 10, 2025
Reply of applicants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed.
Reply (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Referred to the full CourtJul 8, 2025
Application (24A1174) referred to the Court.
OrderJul 8, 2025
Application (24A1174) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25–cv–3698, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based on its view that Executive Order No. 14210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (2025), and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management implementing that Executive Order are unlawful. Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied— we grant the application. We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court. Justice Sotomayor concurs. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1174_h3ci.pdf'>Opinion</a>) Justice Jackson dissents. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/606US2PP_Ord.pdf#page=42'>Opinion</a>)
36 days after filing
OrderJul 8, 2025
Application (24A1174) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25–cv–3698, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based on its view that Executive Order No. 14210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (2025), and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management implementing that Executive Order are unlawful. Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied— we grant the application. We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court. Justice Sotomayor concurs. Justice Jackson dissents.
36 days after filing
Order (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)

The case below

Ruling under review: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-3293
Filings: The application (PDF)