Introduction 
The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with reforms to the Department of Education, granting a stay in McMahon v. New York. The ruling lifts a lower court injunction and signals that the fight over presidential control over executive agencies will continue. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented, arguing that the administration’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional dismantling of the department. 

Background on the Department of Education 
In 1979, Congress passed the Department of Education Organization Act to consolidate federal education programs into a Cabinet-level agency. The Department administers programs ranging from student aid to K-12 funding. Conservatives have long argued that the Department adds an unnecessary layer of federal bureaucracy to our educational system. In his executive order, President Trump highlighted excessive federal spending on schools and the ballooning student loan portfolio as evidence of federal failure. His administration argues that reducing the Department’s role would both relieve federal debt and return authority to the states, where it rightfully belongs. 

Case Summary and Timeline 
President Trump campaigned on closing the Department of Education and returning authority to the states. After his election, he reiterated plans for a “virtual closure” without congressional involvement. Upon nominating Linda McMahon as Secretary, he directed her to “put herself out of a job.” On her first day, McMahon issued a memorandum outlining the department’s “final mission” to fulfill the president’s promises. 

In March 2025, McMahon announced steep workforce reductions, cutting nearly half of the Department’s employees and shuttering entire offices, including the Office of English Language Acquisition and much of the Federal Student Aid certification team. She called it “the first step on the road to a total shutdown.” Days later, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14242, directing the Secretary to facilitate the Department’s closure and return education authority to the states. 

Several states, unions, and school districts quickly filed lawsuits, claiming financial harm and arguing that the President lacked authority to dissolve the Department. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction in May 2025, finding the administration’s actions unlawful. The First Circuit denied a stay. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court granted the stay, allowing reforms to proceed while the case continues. 

Sotomayor’s Dissent 
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that because Congress created the Department, only Congress could dismantle it. The majority, however, concluded that the lower court exceeded its authority by blocking lawful executive actions. 

Conclusion 
The executive order makes clear that the Secretary’s actions must remain within the law. Far from overreaching, the administration is acting within its constitutional authority to reduce federal involvement in education. Returning power to the states aligns with the Founders’ vision of federalism, ensuring that education policy remains closest to the people it affects. 

The Court’s stay does not abolish the Department, but it affirms that the President may act within the law to reduce its scope. For now, the administration’s reforms move forward, but this case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the near future.