A federal judge on Friday cast doubt on the Trump administration鈥檚 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鈥攁 key distinction as the judge considers whether the staff cuts overstepped the president鈥檚 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鈥檚 spoken in recent months about 鈥渞eturning education to the states鈥�; putting Education Secretary Linda McMahon 鈥渙ut of a job鈥�; and closing the Education Department 鈥渢o the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law鈥� without congressional action, as written in an executive order Trump signed in March.
鈥淚t鈥檚 kind of like when my kids were teenagers, they would throw a party at the house,鈥� Joun said. 鈥淭hey might say, 鈥楾o the extent that my parents give me permission to, I鈥檓 throwing this party.鈥� It doesn鈥檛 excuse having thrown the party.鈥�
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鈥檚 second largest teachers鈥� union and two school districts in Massachusetts, argues Trump overstepped his authority with his March 20 executive order directing McMahon 鈥渢o take all necessary steps to facilitate鈥� the department鈥檚 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鈥檚 goal is 鈥済iving states and local authorities more control over decision-making, so there鈥檚 less interference from Washington bureaucrats.鈥� But, Hamilton said, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 distinct from the administrative agenda of making the Department of Education as efficient as it can be.鈥�
Joun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, also pushed back when Hamilton described closing the Department of Education as being part of Trump鈥檚 鈥渓egislative agenda鈥� rather than an action he wants to carry out himself.
鈥淯sually when somebody says they鈥檙e 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鈥檙e going to do exactly what they said they were going to do,鈥� 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.
鈥淧resident Trump understands we鈥檒l be working with Congress,鈥� McMahon said during her Senate confirmation hearing in February. 鈥淲e鈥檇 like to do this right.鈥�
Republican lawmakers have that would close the agency and shift its functions elsewhere in the federal government, but those proposals haven鈥檛 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鈥攈elping state officials, district leaders, and 糖心动漫vlog understand federal regulations; collecting data that informs the field of academic progress; disbursing loans to college students depending on tuition support; and more.
鈥淭he department is no longer functioning, and it is getting worse every day,鈥� a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs said during Friday鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 position that the plaintiffs leading the lawsuits don鈥檛 have standing in the case because they鈥檙e 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鈥�.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think that these plaintiffs are saying, if one morning there鈥檚 no one there, that Dunkin鈥� Donuts should hire these two employees back,鈥� Joun said. 鈥淚 think what they鈥檙e saying is they want the cup of coffee.鈥�
