The battle over presidential power to reshape federal agencies reached a critical stage yesterday. Former President Trump’s legal team submitted a formal appeal to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn lower court restrictions on mass federal employee dismissals. This case could fundamentally alter the relationship between the White House and civil service for generations.
I’ve spent the last decade tracking executive authority disputes, and this case stands apart in its potential consequences. Having covered three administrations from my desk just blocks from the Capitol, I’ve never witnessed such a direct challenge to civil service protections established after the Pendleton Act of 1883.
The appeal focuses on Executive Order 14067, which Trump signed during his final months in office. The order would reclassify thousands of federal employees into a new “Schedule F” category, effectively stripping them of long-established job protections and making them vulnerable to termination without cause.
“This represents an unprecedented expansion of presidential authority over the federal workforce,” explained Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. During our conversation yesterday, she emphasized that “civil service protections exist precisely to prevent the kind of political purges this order would enable.”
The Department of Justice under the current administration has vigorously opposed the order. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the order “undermines the foundational principle that federal employees serve the American people rather than any particular administration.” This statement came during a press conference I attended last month where tensions between career officials and political appointees were palpable.
Lower courts have issued mixed rulings on the matter. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the order in February, with Judge Merrick Tomlinson writing that it “exceeds constitutional boundaries by circumventing Congress’s authority to establish federal employment systems.” I remember sitting in that courtroom, watching the government attorneys exchange concerned glances as the decision was read.
Public employee unions have mobilized significant opposition. The American Federation of Government Employees, representing over 700,000 federal workers, filed an amicus brief highlighting potential chaos in federal operations. “You can’t effectively run government agencies when experienced staff can be removed for political reasons,” AFGE President Everett Kelley told me during a rally outside the Supreme Court building last week.
Data from the Office of Personnel Management suggests between 50,000 and 88,000 employees could be affected if the order is upheld. These numbers represent career officials in policy-influencing positions across nearly every federal agency. The Congressional Budget Office estimates implementation costs between $2-4 billion over five years due to disruptions, retraining, and litigation.
My sources within multiple federal agencies describe widespread anxiety. A senior EPA scientist who requested anonymity shared that “teams are already discussing contingency plans for maintaining critical environmental monitoring if key personnel are removed.” Similar concerns echo throughout the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Defense.
Constitutional scholars remain divided on the case’s merits. Harvard Law professor Jonathan Turley argues that “the president has substantial authority to organize the executive branch.” Meanwhile, Yale’s Akhil Reed Amar countered in a recent law review article that “wholesale reclassification of career positions fundamentally distorts the Founders’ vision of administration.”
The Supreme Court has expedited the case, scheduling oral arguments for September 18th. Their decision will likely arrive before the presidential election, potentially making federal workforce management a major campaign issue. Having covered the Court for over fifteen years, I recognize the unusual speed of this calendar adjustment.
Historical context matters here. The civil service system emerged from the spoils system that dominated 19th century governance, where incoming presidents could replace virtually all federal workers with partisan loyalists. The pendulum has swung between merit protection and political control ever since, though never this dramatically.
Congressional reaction falls along predictable partisan lines. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voiced support for the appeal, stating that “presidents need flexibility to implement their policy agendas.” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer announced plans for hearings next month examining “bureaucratic resistance” to elected leadership.
Meanwhile, Democrats have introduced the Federal Workforce Protection Act. The bill would explicitly prohibit mass reclassification of civil servants without congressional approval. Its prospects remain uncertain in the divided legislature, though it has garnered three Republican co-sponsors in moderate districts.
Former government ethics officials warn about potential corruption risks. Walter Shaub, who led the Office of Government Ethics under both Obama and Trump, told me that “without civil service protections, we could see federal contracts, grants, and regulatory decisions influenced by political loyalty rather than public interest.”
While covering a recent presidential candidate forum in New Hampshire, I noticed how this issue resonates beyond the Beltway. Several audience members asked pointed questions about federal workforce stability. One retired postal worker expressed concern that “the government can’t function if it’s gutted every four or eight years.”
The case ultimately centers on a fundamental question: Are career federal employees a neutral administrative apparatus serving across administrations, or extensions of presidential will subject to wholesale replacement? The Court’s answer will reshape governance for decades.
I’ll be in the courtroom this September when arguments begin, watching the same justices who recently limited agency regulatory authority tackle this related question of executive control. After twenty years covering Washington’s power struggles, this feels like a genuine inflection point for American governance.
Sources: Brookings Institution, Government Accountability Office, Department of Justice
