Throughout our nation’s nearly 250-year history, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has only existed for forty of them. Created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, the DOE was founded to foster educational excellence and equality with the mission of promoting the academic achievement and global preparedness of American students. 

Today, the DOE does not set policy or create curriculum. Its importance has instead evolved into a federal blockade against a return to our nation’s racist past, one that was perpetrated heavily through the education system. 

But for the Trump Administration, the DOE represents a federal overreach into a societal realm it believes should be controlled by the states and local communities. In his first term and on the campaign trail, President Trump and hard-line Republicans framed the DOE as a vastly bureaucratic and unnecessary piece of the federal government. 

When Trump stepped into the Oval Office for a second time, one can only imagine how high the DOE was on the agenda. 

Early Actions

Unlike the first time around, the second Trump Administration went straight to work. In early 2025, immediately after her confirmation, Education Secretary Linda McMahon completely slashed the ranks of the DOE. Following Executive Order 14242, McMahon was instructed to do everything she could to “facilitate the closure” of the DOE. 

McMahon’s first actions resulted in a reduction-in-force of almost 1,500 DOE employees and the closure of numerous critical offices. It took less than a month for more than half of the DOE’s staff to be placed on leave and for the Office of Civil Rights, Federal Student Aid, and Special Education to be shuttered. 

Academia nationwide responded promptly. A largely Democratic coalition of 20 states, two school districts, and many teachers’ unions sued in Massachusetts federal court. Their arguments were grounded in executive overreach, positing that only Congress could enact such drastic changes to a Cabinet agency. 

In May, Judge Myong Joun of Massachusetts ordered the DOE to re-hire all laid-off employees and blocked any further downsizing of the agency, siding with the states’ coalition. 

The July 14th Ruling

Continuing the legal battle, the Trump Administration instantly appealed Judge Joun’s decision, bringing the case in front of the Supreme Court. The case received an emergency application to stay Joun’s decision, meaning that his ruling was suspended indefinitely. 

In a 6-3 vote in the shadow docket ruling, the Court allowed the Trump Administration to proceed to fire employees and downsize programming operations within the DOE regardless of the lawsuit’s progression. No majority opinion or reasoning was provided in support of the decision. 

The Court effectively allowed the reduction-in-force to continue, siding with the Trump Administration. While the assenting Justices issued no explanation, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a 19-page dissent alongside Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They warned against a further dismantling of the Constitution's separation of powers and the threats to educational equality that will be posed to marginalized populations of today’s American society.

“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Nevertheless, the dissent only wrote about the judiciary, neglecting to mention the abrupt decision’s long-term consequences for educational personnel across the country. 

Immediate Decision, Immediate Impact

When Secretary McMahon initiated the reduction-in-force in the early days of the second Trump Administration, roughly 1,500 DOE employees were placed on leave. Now, with the Court’s decision in place, those employees and more could be subject to an immediate termination of their contracts at the DOE. More DOE offices can be shuttered without opposition, slowing down critical DOE functions to maintain nationwide educational standards. 

McMahon and the DOE instituted their reduction-in-force throughout the Cabinet agency as a baseline step towards the future decimation of the DOE. On July 14th, the Supreme Court stepped in and streamlined that process for them, enabling the DOE to shift to a “removal-of-force” at any time. 

Long-term Ramifications for Academia

In 2024, seven million Americans were recorded as employees in the American public school system, overseeing nearly 50 million students. On July 14th, six Justices placed the future of all students nationwide in one woman’s hands—because while the Court addressed the federal operations of the DOE, those inevitably spill over into the states. 

K-12 public schools nationwide rely on federal grants to survive. With cuts to the DOE, the effectiveness and timeliness of these grants risk being compromised. Because of this, schools will also have to downsize, thereby eliminating their size-based qualifications for further federal aid. 

A potential outcome of the DOE depletion is a redirection of its operations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the Small Business Administration (SBA). Before the DOE’s founding, educational operations were handled by HHS, but today neither the Department nor the states may be ready to instantly assume such duties.

But most significant of all is the concern that the Court’s decision weakens Civil Rights protections. For several decades, American public schools were grounds for the enforcement of civil rights violations, including segregation. In the U.S., such practices will hopefully never be reinstated. But by slowly removing the DOE, other discriminatory infringements toward LGBTQ+ students, students of color, and disabled students risk becoming more commonplace.

Federal Impact First

All recent legal developments regarding the DOE target the agency's federal operations. This will inevitably impact local academia nationwide, but granted, to a lesser extent. 

In the immediate future, the Washington branch of the DOE will inevitably dwindle. Coinciding with that transition, educational policy setting and monitoring will increasingly be devolved to the states. In some states, that may be for the better. But in the same breath, education may end up for the worse in others. But ultimately, the Court’s decision represents the gradual degradation of the separation of powers over education policy—all educators and students nationwide should take notice.