Supreme Court Could Be Key to Protecting Federal Employees from Trump's Executive Order

Legal challenge to Trump’s executive order on federal workers may gain traction with key justices. Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Trump administration's executive orders have been far-reaching, causing significant shifts in policy, many of which have faced immediate opposition from courts, media, and public officials. While some of these moves have targeted issues such as immigration, birthright citizenship, and diversity programs, one of the most dangerous and overlooked measures is Trump's executive order stripping federal workers of legal protections. This order attempts to expand presidential power over federal employees, undermining their job security and legal rights.

The most alarming aspect of the executive order is its attempt to grant the president authority to remove, demote, or otherwise harass any federal worker deemed to hold a “policy-influencing” position. This broad interpretation would effectively eliminate the protections that career federal employees have enjoyed since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. By stripping these protections, Trump seeks to transform civil service positions into at-will jobs, akin to political appointees, who can be removed at the president's discretion without due process.

This move threatens to destabilize the merit-based civil service system, potentially allowing political influence to dictate the staffing of key government positions. However, there is still hope that the U.S. Supreme Court could step in to block this unprecedented action. Legal experts argue that, despite a conservative majority on the Court, there may be enough votes to counter Trump's executive order, particularly if the case is framed effectively.

Challenging Trump's Power Grab in Court

To succeed in a legal challenge, advocates must craft arguments capable of swaying at least two of the six conservative justices, while building broader public support. Federal judges, including those appointed by Trump, have demonstrated a commitment to interpreting laws based on their original intent. Therefore, legal experts believe there may be an opening to argue that the executive order misinterprets key statutory language.

Trump's legal team argues that the president has the power to exclude certain positions from civil service protections, citing a statutory provision that allows the president to remove employees in "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" roles. However, this interpretation ignores the context of the civil service laws, which were designed to safeguard federal workers from arbitrary political interference.

Supreme Court's Precedent in Protecting Statutory Rights

A crucial case that could guide the Court’s decision is King v. Burwell (2015), which upheld the Affordable Care Act's subsidies by emphasizing the importance of interpreting statutes in their full context. Chief Justice Roberts, in that case, argued that words within a statute must be read in relation to their place in the overall legislative scheme. This approach suggests that a broad reading of Trump's executive order—isolating certain phrases from their legislative context—would be inconsistent with how the Court typically interprets laws.

In fact, the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 was designed to protect federal employees from arbitrary firings while allowing for performance-based management improvements. Had Trump's executive order been authorized by the CSRA, there would have been no need for the 1978 law to include strict procedures for evaluating and disciplining senior officials. This regulatory framework, which includes protections against unfair dismissal, still stands and is inconsistent with the power Trump’s order seeks to consolidate.

The Legal Road Ahead: Can the Supreme Court Protect Civil Service Protections?

The road to challenging Trump's executive order may appear steep, given the Court’s current conservative majority. However, the legal landscape may not be as hostile as it seems. Past decisions, particularly King v. Burwell, provide a framework for interpreting statutes in ways that prevent extreme or out-of-context readings that could harm public policy. Given the historical significance of the CSRA and its original intent to safeguard federal employees, the Court might be persuaded to protect the rights of civil servants from a move that could undermine decades of established legal protections.

Moreover, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has demonstrated a holistic approach to interpreting statutes, could be a key player in forming a majority against Trump’s executive order. If Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, along with the liberal justices, form a majority, they could reject Trump's attempt to dismantle the civil service system, reinforcing the constitutional protections for federal workers.

As the legal battle progresses, the stakes are high. The outcome will not only determine the future of federal employment protections but could also establish important precedents for how the executive branch wields its power over civil servants.