A federal judge delivered a significant legal setback to President Donald Trump’s agenda on May 22, 2025, blocking his administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and ordering the immediate reinstatement of more than 1,300 terminated employees.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from carrying out mass layoffs announced on March 11, 2025. The ruling represents the first time a federal court has determined the administration’s sweeping changes to the Education Department are unlawful.
Joun, a Biden appointee, wrote that “The idea that Defendants’ actions are merely a ‘reorganization’ is plainly not true.” The judge found that the administration’s true intention was to effectively dismantle the department without proper congressional authorization.
The Education Department faced severe staffing reductions under Trump’s executive actions. When the president took office in January 2025, the agency employed 4,133 workers. The March 11 announcement eliminated positions for more than 1,300 employees, while nearly 600 additional staff members chose to resign or retire. This left approximately 2,180 remaining employees, roughly half the department’s original size.
Judge Joun characterized the cuts as potentially crippling to the agency’s function. He noted that the department was already struggling to meet its goals before the reduction in force, making it reasonable to expect that such massive cuts would likely disable the department entirely. The judge emphasized that a department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all.
The ruling also prohibits the Education Department from transferring management of federal student loans and special education functions to other agencies, as outlined in Trump’s March 21, 2025 directive. The injunction requires the department to provide weekly status reports describing compliance efforts until the agency is restored to its pre-January 20, 2025 condition.
Two consolidated lawsuits challenged the administration’s actions. The first was filed by the American Federation of Teachers on March 18, 2025, followed by a case brought by 21 Democratic state attorneys general led by New York, along with school districts from Massachusetts and other education groups. The plaintiffs argued that the layoffs amounted to an illegal shutdown of the Education Department, leaving it unable to carry out congressional mandates, including supporting special education, distributing financial aid, and enforcing civil rights laws.
Education Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications Madi Biedermann criticized the ruling in a strongly worded statement. She described Joun as a “far-left judge” who overstepped his authority and argued that President Trump and Senate-confirmed Secretary Linda McMahon have clear authority to make agency reorganization decisions.
Biedermann indicated the department would immediately challenge the ruling on an emergency basis, stating that the decision was not in the best interest of American students or families. The administration maintains that its reduction in force was lawful and aimed at improving efficiency rather than shutting down the department.
The court ruling comes just one day after another federal judge blocked Trump’s administration from firing two Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on May 21, 2025. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton found that allowing unilateral firings would prevent the oversight board from carrying out its congressional mandate to ensure federal counterterrorism policies align with privacy and civil liberties law.
These judicial interventions represent part of a broader pattern of legal challenges facing Trump’s administrative agenda. Courts have also blocked the administration’s attempts to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and freeze federal grants and loans. The administration has consistently characterized opposing judges as activist and politically motivated.
Secretary Linda McMahon, a former professional wrestling executive, appeared before a House Appropriations Subcommittee on May 21, 2025, to discuss Trump’s budget proposal, which includes a 15% cut to education funding. During the hearing, McMahon outlined the administration’s priorities: closing the Department of Education, returning control to states, empowering parents, and expanding charter schools.
McMahon has repeatedly emphasized that dismantling the department would require congressional approval and that the administration’s goal is not to defund programs but to operate more efficiently. She indicated during her February 2025 confirmation hearing that she would work with Congress to develop a plan for the department’s closure that senators could support.
The Department of Education, established by Congress in 1979, oversees funding for public schools, administers student loans, and operates programs supporting low-income students. Republican critics have long accused the agency of wasteful spending and promoting what they characterize as inappropriate racial, sexual, and political content in schools.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called the court ruling the first step to reverse what she described as a war on knowledge and the undermining of broad-based opportunity. Meanwhile, advocates for students with disabilities and civil rights groups had urged senators to reject McMahon’s nomination, expressing concerns about the impact on vulnerable student populations.
The federal education agency serves approximately 50 million children in public schools nationwide, compared to 4.7 million in private schools. Its primary functions include administering Title I funding for schools serving low-income students and overseeing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs for students with special needs.
Judge Joun’s ruling requires immediate compliance, giving the Department of Education 72 hours to file its first status report. The administration’s next steps will likely include an emergency appeal to higher courts, potentially setting up a Supreme Court review of presidential authority over executive agency reorganization.
