A federal judge halts President Trump’s executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, citing legal overreach and potential harm to educational programs.
In a significant legal development, a federal judge has issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order aimed at dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. The ruling, delivered on June 5, 2025, prevents the administration from proceeding with plans to eliminate the department and mandates the reinstatement of over 1,300 employees who were laid off following a reduction-in-force announcement in March.
The judge’s decision comes in response to lawsuits filed by several states and education advocacy groups, who argued that the administration’s actions violated federal law and threatened the delivery of essential educational services. The plaintiffs contended that dismantling the department would hinder its ability to fulfill congressionally mandated responsibilities, including supporting special education, distributing financial aid, and enforcing civil rights laws in schools.
In his ruling, the judge emphasized the “irreparable harm” that would result from the department’s closure, stating that the layoffs would “cripple the Department” and that the claim of merely reorganizing the agency was “plainly not true.” He ordered the Department of Education to restore its operations to the status quo prior to the layoffs.
The Trump administration has defended its actions, asserting that the restructuring aims to improve efficiency and does not equate to a shutdown. However, critics argue that the executive order oversteps executive authority, as dismantling a federal agency requires congressional approval.
Education advocates have welcomed the ruling. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, described the decision as “a first step to reverse this war on knowledge and the undermining of broad-based opportunity.”
The Department of Education has announced plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that the judge’s decision oversteps judicial authority and hampers efforts to make the department more efficient.
This legal battle underscores the ongoing tension between the executive branch’s policy objectives and the judiciary’s role in upholding statutory mandates, particularly in the realm of federal education policy.
