A federal judge on Friday cast doubt on the Trump administration’s claim that its decision to terminate hundreds of Education Department employees in recent months was separate from its broader goal of shutting down the agency—a key distinction as the judge considers whether the staff cuts overstepped the president’s authority.
Judge Myong J. Joun from the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts pressed Trump administration lawyers on what the president has meant when he’s spoken in recent months about “returning education to the states”; putting Education Secretary Linda McMahon “out of a job”; and closing the Education Department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law” without congressional action, as written in an executive order Trump signed in March.
“It’s kind of like when my kids were teenagers, they would throw a party at the house,” Joun said. “They might say, ‘To the extent that my parents give me permission to, I’m throwing this party.’ It doesn’t excuse having thrown the party.”
The exchange came as plaintiffs and defendants outlined arguments in two lawsuits challenging the recent gutting of Education Department staffers. One suit, filed by Democratic attorneys general of 21 states against Education Secretary Linda McMahon, contests the March 11 termination of hundreds of employees at the federal agency. The other, from the nation’s second largest teachers’ union and two school districts in Massachusetts, argues Trump overstepped his authority with his March 20 executive order directing McMahon “to take all necessary steps to facilitate” the department’s closure.
Both groups seek reinstatement of the Department of Education employees terminated on March 11, including staff from divisions that work on civil rights, special education, student loans, and data collection.
Eric Hamilton, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the administration, said Trump’s goal is “giving states and local authorities more control over decision-making, so there’s less interference from Washington bureaucrats.” But, Hamilton said, “that’s distinct from the administrative agenda of making the Department of Education as efficient as it can be.”
Joun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, also pushed back when Hamilton described closing the Department of Education as being part of Trump’s “legislative agenda” rather than an action he wants to carry out himself.
“Usually when somebody says they’re going to do something, and then they start taking actions to do what they said they were gonna do, I can take meaning from that, that they’re going to do exactly what they said they were going to do,” Joun said.
Trump campaigned on eliminating the department and signed an executive order to that effect last month. But the authority to establish or dismantle a cabinet agency lies with Congress, as Trump administration officials have acknowledged.
“President Trump understands we’ll be working with Congress,” McMahon said during her Senate confirmation hearing in February. “We’d like to do this right.”
Republican lawmakers have introduced bills that would close the agency and shift its functions elsewhere in the federal government, but those proposals haven’t advanced.
Even so, the lawsuits argue, the significantly diminished staff at the Education Department is now unable to efficiently carry out agency duties that are mandated by law—helping state officials, district leaders, and educators understand federal regulations; collecting data that informs the field of academic progress; disbursing loans to college students depending on tuition support; and more.
“The department is no longer functioning, and it is getting worse every day,” a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs said during Friday’s hearing.
A lawyer for the Massachusetts education department also warned that the layoffs could affect how Title I funds are allocated in the coming years. Congress allocates billions of dollars a year to that program for schools that serve low-income students; more than half of all U.S. school districts receive awards.
Joun didn’t preview his ruling or indicate whether he believes the fired employees ought to be able to return to work.
He did, however, contest the administration’s position that the plaintiffs leading the lawsuits don’t have standing in the case because they’re trying to intervene in personnel matters outside their jurisdiction. To illustrate the point, he described his morning routine of ordering coffee from two workers at his local Dunkin’.
“I don’t think that these plaintiffs are saying, if one morning there’s no one there, that Dunkin’ Donuts should hire these two employees back,” Joun said. “I think what they’re saying is they want the cup of coffee.”
