Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker

Emergency application

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 Ruled 36 days after filing

What's being asked

The federal government asks the Supreme Court to pause (stay) a lower-court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit while the appeal continues. The case is Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. American Federation of Government Employees.

What the Court did

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>)

Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
  1. Sotomayor
Dissenting · 1recorded against the Court's order
  1. Jackson
Vote not published · 7the order does not say how they voted
  1. Thomas
  2. Roberts
  3. Alito
  4. Kagan
  5. Gorsuch
  6. Kavanaugh
  7. 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.
Days from filing to a ruling for 46 rulings on applications where the Court asked for a response since January 1, 2025. The band is the middle half, the tick the median, and the mark this application: ruled 36 days after filing.

What it means

This is a temporary order about what happens while the case is decided, not a ruling on who is right. The case continues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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 September 25, 2026