A U.S. federal judge imposed a legal barrier to President Donald Trump’s policy agenda on May 22, 2025, halting the administration’s bid to dismantle the Department of Education and calling for the immediate reinstatement of over 1,300 employees who had been terminated.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, in Boston, Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the Trump administration from executing widespread layoffs announced on March 11, 2025. This ruling marks the first instance where a federal court has declared the administration’s extensive modifications to the Education Department illegal.
Joun, appointed by former President Joe Biden, stated that “The idea that Defendants’ actions are merely a ‘reorganization’ is plainly not true.” The judge determined that the administration aimed to dismantle the department without the necessary congressional approval.
Under Trump’s executive directives, the Education Department faced significant staff reductions. When Trump assumed office in January 2025, the department had 4,133 employees. The March 11 directive eliminated roles for over 1,300 individuals, while nearly 600 additional staff chose to resign or retire. This left about 2,180 employees, roughly half of the original workforce.
Judge Joun described the job cuts as possibly detrimental to the department’s operations. He noted that the department was already struggling to fulfill its objectives before the workforce reduction, suggesting that such extensive cuts could potentially render the department incapacitated. He stressed that a department lacking adequate personnel to perform legally required functions is not a functioning department.
The ruling also prohibits the Education Department from reallocating management of federal student loans and special education responsibilities to other agencies, as outlined in Trump’s March 21, 2025, directive. The injunction requires the department to submit weekly status reports detailing its compliance efforts until it is restored to its pre-January 20, 2025, state.
Two lawsuits were consolidated to challenge the administration’s measures. The first was filed by the American Federation of Teachers on March 18, 2025, followed by a case from 21 Democratic state attorneys general, led by New York, along with school districts from Massachusetts and additional education groups. The plaintiffs claimed that the layoffs were tantamount to an unlawful shutdown of the Education Department, rendering it unable to fulfill congressional mandates such as supporting special education, distributing financial aid, and enforcing civil rights laws.
Madi Biedermann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications at the Education Department, criticized the ruling in a strongly worded statement. She described Judge Joun as a “far-left judge” who exceeded his authority and argued that President Trump and Senate-confirmed Secretary Linda McMahon have the clear authority to make decisions about agency reorganization.
Biedermann indicated the department would promptly challenge the ruling on an emergency basis, arguing that the decision was not in the best interest of American students or families. The administration maintains that its workforce reduction was lawful and aimed at enhancing efficiency rather than closing the department.
The court ruling followed a day after another federal judge blocked Trump’s administration from dismissing two Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on May 21, 2025. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton determined that permitting unilateral dismissals would prevent the oversight board from executing its congressional mandate to ensure federal counterterrorism policies comply with privacy and civil liberties law.
These judicial interventions are part of a broader trend of legal challenges confronting Trump’s administrative agenda. Courts have also blocked the administration’s attempts to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and to 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.
