People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on Feb. 11, the day President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling on DOGE to cut federal jobs. The Supreme Court said Tuesday those cuts could proceed, for now. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by  President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.

Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.

A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s executive order did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.

The Supreme Court agreed in a one-page order Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.

In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.

“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval. But she said the executive order and an implementing memo from the Office of Management and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.

A White House spokesperson called the decision a “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.

“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.

But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.

In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”

The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”

“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.

In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an X post that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.

“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”

Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”

“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.

The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.

The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a hafl-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.

They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.

That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.

“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

Participants walk through the Broadway Townhouses in Camden, N.J., as part of a training program to help neighborhoods affected by violence. The Community-Based Public Safety Collective, which offered the training, is one of at least 554 organizations affected by the U.S. Department of Justice’s abrupt termination in April of at least 373 public safety grants. (Photo courtesy of Aqeela Sherrills)

Community-based violence intervention programs nationwide have long worked alongside law enforcement officers to deescalate conflict, prevent retaliatory shootings and, in some cases, arrive at crime scenes before police do.

In many communities, these initiatives have been credited with saving lives and reducing violence.

But the Trump administration last month abruptly terminated at least 373 public safety grants from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, pulling roughly $500 million in remaining funds across a range of programs, according to a new report by the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonprofit think tank. The cuts come just as summer is approaching — a season when violence consistently peaks.

The grants were initially valued at $820 million, but many were multiyear awards at different stages of rollout, which means some of the money has already been spent.

At least 554 organizations across 48 states are affected by the cuts, many of them small, community-based nonprofits that rely on this money. The rescinded grants supported everything from violence prevention and policing to victim advocacy, reentry services, research, and mental health and substance use treatment. Some of the grants also were cut from state and local government agencies.

Another new report from the Council on Criminal Justice dug deeper into local effects: It found that the Trump administration’s cuts also eliminated 473 minigrants — known as “subawards” — passed from primary recipients to smaller groups that often face challenges accessing federal dollars directly, such as rural government agencies and grassroots nonprofits.

About $5 million of those subawards was intended for state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies working to reduce violence in rural areas, according to the report.

Experts warn the timing couldn’t be worse. The summer months — historically linked to higher rates of violent crimes — are approaching, and the safety net in many cities is fraying. A growing body of research has found a correlation between spikes in temperature and violent crime, with studies suggesting that heat waves and sudden weather swings can inflame tensions and increase aggression.

“These programs are having to cut staff and cut services, and that will be felt in communities in states all over the country at exactly the time when they’re most needed,” said Amy Solomon, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and the lead author of the report.

Solomon also previously served as assistant U.S. attorney general in the Biden administration, where she led the Office of Justice Programs — the Justice Department’s largest grantmaking agency.

Many of the primary grants that were terminated contained no references to race, gender or diversity-related language, according to the report — despite claims from federal officials that such criteria were driving the cuts. Primary grant recipients received their funding from the feds directly.

‘Wasteful grants’

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the cuts in a late April post on X, stating that the department has cut “millions of dollars in wasteful grants.” She also signaled that additional cuts may be on the way. In her post, she specifically cited grants that supported LGBTQ+ liaison services in police departments and programs providing gender-affirming care and housing for incarcerated transgender people.

The Department of Justice’s cuts come amid a broader push by the Trump administration and the newly created Department of Government Efficiency to pull funding from a range of federal programs — a move they say is aimed at reducing spending and saving taxpayer dollars.

For some groups, the sudden withdrawal of funds has meant scaling back crime victim services or pulling out of some neighborhoods altogether.

Community violence prevention groups aim to stop shootings and other forms of violence before they happen by working directly with those most at risk. Staff — often with experience in the justice system — mediate conflicts, respond to crises, and connect people to support such as counseling or job training. In some cities, they’re dispatched to high-risk areas to deescalate tensions, often before police arrive.

And research shows that community-level violence prevention programs can contribute to drops in crime.

After a historic surge in homicides in 2020, violent crime in the United States dropped in 2024 to pre-pandemic levels — or even lower — in many cities. Preliminary 2025 data suggests that the downward trend is continuing in major cities, including Baltimore, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

But the progress hasn’t reached every community. Some neighborhoods are still grappling with high rates of gun violence and car theft.

Organizations that faced the toughest financial cuts had been funded through the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative — the federal government’s primary mechanism for supporting this work.

Since the program’s launch in 2022, the federal Office of Justice Programs has invested about $300 million in community violence intervention efforts and related research. But nearly half of that funding has now been wiped out, according to the Council on Criminal Justice report.

“It’s really unprecedented to see these kinds of grants cut midstream,” Solomon told Stateline. “This was an effort that had bipartisan support [in Congress] and in the field all across the country.”

Impact on communities nationwide

In late April, Aqeela Sherrills received a letter from the federal Justice Department terminating a $3.5 million grant that supported the Community-Based Public Safety Collective. Sherrills is the co-founder and executive director of the national organization, which focuses on community-led approaches to preventing violence, including mediating conflicts, building relationships in high-risk neighborhoods and connecting people to resources such as housing, mental health care and job training.

The letter said the organization’s efforts no longer aligned with the federal Justice Department’s priorities, which include supporting “certain law enforcement operations, combatting violent crime, protecting American children, and supporting American victims of trafficking and sexual assault.”

Until the end of April, the collective had an agreement with the Justice Department to provide training and technical assistance to 95 local groups — including community groups, police departments, city and county governments, and state agencies — that had each been awarded $2 million over three years to run community violence intervention programs.

But after the department cut $3.5 million, the Community-Based Public Safety Collective was forced to lay off 20 staff members.

“Without the significant funding … it destabilizes the organizations. People’s ability to be able to provide for themselves and their family is at risk,” Sherrills said in an interview. “We’re bracing for what could potentially be a high-violence summer.”

The deepest funding cuts hit states led by both Republican and Democratic governors, including California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington.

About $145 million in violence intervention funding was rescinded overall, along with an additional $8.6 million for related research and evaluation efforts, according to the Council on Criminal Justice report.

Some of the canceled grants funded studies and research on forensics, policing, corrections issues and behavioral health. Now, those projects may be left unfinished.

Some of the largest losses hit intermediary organizations, such as the Community-Based Public Safety Collective, that support smaller programs by providing microgrants, training and technical assistance.

For organizations such as the Newark Community Street Team in New Jersey, the loss of federal funding has left some areas of the city without coverage.

The funding had allowed staff to monitor neighborhoods and engage directly with community members to prevent violence. That included weekly community walks, where team members connected with victims of crime and people who may have witnessed violence, linking them to resources such as counseling or legal aid. The team also operates a hotline where residents can report crimes or alert staff to tensions that might escalate — allowing the team to step in before violence occurred.

Some of the lost funding also supported school-based initiatives, where mediators helped students resolve conflicts before they escalated into fights or other forms of violence.

Of the 15 Newark positions affected by the cuts, four employees were reassigned to other departments; the others were let go. Some of the team’s staff members are formerly incarcerated, a vital trait that helps them connect with residents and build trust in communities that are often wary of traditional law enforcement.

“We just have to continue working and serving our community the best we can,” said Rey Chavis, the executive director of the street team.

That work appears to be contributing to a decrease in the community’s crime rates.

City crime data from Jan. 1 to April 30, 2025, shows a significant drop in violent crime in Newark compared with the same period in 2024. The total number of violent crimes reported to police fell by 49%, driven largely by a 68% decrease in robberies, according to Stateline’s analysis of the data. Homicides dropped by 53%, while aggravated assaults declined by 43%. Rapes dropped slightly by 3%.

Stateline reporter Amanda Hernández can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.