President Donald Trump speaks before Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is sworn in as HHS Secretary in the Oval Office, Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington (Photo/Alex Brandon).
The Trump administration has pushed through an “effective dismantling” of the Department of Education through massive layoffs, a lawsuit filed Thursday in Massachusetts federal court alleges.
On March 11, the agency announced a “nearly 50%” reduction in force (RIF) with a press release . Later that same day, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon told The Hill those planned terminations were the “first step” toward the “total shutdown” of her entire department.
The plaintiffs, in their 53-page lawsuit , say the agency’s plans are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions” that cause “immense damage” to the educational systems of several states. The complaint alleges the would-be federal firing spree is illegal — in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
Moreover, the filing argues, the ongoing and upcoming reductions in staffing amount to an unlawful end-run around congressional authority in order to advance President Donald Trump’s stated goal of shuttering the department in de facto if not de jure terms.
“But the Trump Administration cannot dismantle the Department of Education,” the lawsuit reads. “It cannot override — whether through large-scale RIFs or otherwise — the statutory framework prescribing the Department’s responsibilities. As the Supreme Court put it nearly a century ago, ‘[t]o Congress under its legislative power is given the establishment of offices [and] the determination of their functions and jurisdiction.’ And, thus, administrative agencies ‘are creatures of statute.””
In other words, and in a recurring theme prevalent in litigation against the current government, statutory authority holds sway over presidential directives and agency interpretations of such directives, according to the plaintiffs.
Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, and joined by 20 other attorneys general, the lawsuit aims to enjoin McMahon from going through with the firings slated to occur on March 21. The litigation also seeks a declaratory judgment that plans to dismantle the agency are unlawful and an injunction barring both Trump and McMahon from effectuating the directive.
“Because neither the President nor his agencies can undo the many acts of Congress that authorize the Department, dictate its responsibilities, and appropriate funds for it to administer, the President’s directive to eliminate the Department of Education — including through the March 11 decimation of the Department’s workforce and any other agency implementation — is an unlawful violation of the separation of powers, and the Executive’s obligation to take care that the law be faithfully executed,” the lawsuit goes on.
The core issue is basic constitutional governance, the lawsuit alleges.
“It is a bedrock constitutional principle that the President and his agencies cannot make law,” the filing continues. “Rather, they can only — and indeed, they must — implement the laws enacted by Congress, including those statutes that create federal agencies and dictate their duties. The Executive thus can neither outright abolish an agency nor incapacitate it by cutting away the personnel required to implement the agency’s statutorily-mandated duties.”
To hear the plaintiffs tell it, the administration has not only telegraphed its intent to dismantle the agency in violation of federal law but has been “effectively nullifying” multiple mandates — also contained in federal law — through “severe and extreme” staff reductions.
Notably, nearly 600 DOE employees have already parted ways with the agency by accepting earlier-issued buyout offers.
“On information and belief, the RIF devastated important segments of the Department of Education, rendering the agency unable to perform its core functions,” the lawsuit claims.
Several offices within the DOE have been “gutted” to the point of either nonexistence or “effective elimination” since staff reduction was started earlier this year, the plaintiffs allege.
Among those impacted by staff cuts so far include “seven regional offices of the Department’s Office for Civil Rights,” the DOE’s Office of General Counsel — including “all” attorneys “specializing in K — 12 grants, IDEA grants, and equity grants” as well as most attorneys “focused on privacy issues” — and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.
Student loan-focused employees have been particularly hard hit by the administration’s plans, the lawsuit alleges.
“On information and belief, the RIF has also seriously impacted the Department of Education’s [Office of Federal Student Aid],” the filing goes on. “FSA directs, coordinates, and recommends policies for programs that are designed to provide financial assistance to eligible students enrolled in postsecondary educational institutions. This assistance includes grants, loans, and work-study assistance to nearly 12.9 million students through approximately 6,100 postsecondary institutions.”
The plaintiffs elaborate on this office, at length:
Included in this system is the administration of Pell Grants, work-study programs and subsidized loans. The Department awards more than $120 billion a year in grants, work-study funds, and low-interest loans to approximately 13 million students. Much of this funding is sent directly to colleges and universities, including public colleges and universities in the Plaintiff States. If Program Participation Renewals are not processed in a timely manner, it could impact the ability of institutions to operate and most of their student to attend the institution by functionally eliminating the availability of financial aid.
The lawsuit also argues the directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the extant and proposed staffing cuts “failed to consider” the vast array of problems that would result from such an extensive workforce depletion. The APA governs all administrative agencies and often works to halt actions deemed “arbitrary and capricious” by a reviewing court.
“The Department’s RIF is arbitrary and capricious because the Department’s stated reasons for the RIF — to promote ‘efficiency’ and ‘accountability’ — are pretext for the President and Secretary McMahon’s stated goal of dismantling the Department from within,” the filing argues. “The Department’s RIF is arbitrary and capricious because the Agency Defendants’ actions impede their ability to perform the Department’s functions, both those that are required by statute and those that are not.”
