Supreme Court sides with Trump in two DOGE suits

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Friday morning asking the justices to temporarily pause an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that requires the Department of Education to reinstate nearly 1,400 employees who were fired as part of a reduction in force in March. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that U.S. District Judge Myong Joun “is attempting to prevent” the Department of Education “from restructuring its workforce, despite lacking the” power to do so “several times over.” 

It was no surprise that the justices decided on Thursday to dismiss Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis. They granted review to decide whether a federal court can certify a class action that includes claimants who have not suffered any real injury. At the oral argument, it became pretty clear that the case in fact does not present that question.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) lists five specific reasons for which a court might reopen a judgment once it becomes final on appeal. It then closes with a catchall in Rule 60(b)(6) that authorizes reopening for “any other reason that justifies relief.” The court’s ruling in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman on Thursday reaffirms a high standard for that relief in an unsurprising decision that is unlikely to cause much of a stir.

Although the Supreme Court traditionally has required “extraordinary circumstances” to justify reopening under the catchall, the lower court here held that a more forgiving standard should apply when the disappointed litigant seeks reopening to file an amended complaint.

Thursday’s decision in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. was no surprise to anyone. As my story on the oral argument in March explained, nobody was willing to defend the standard adopted by the court of appeals. So a succinct and unanimous opinion from Justice Samuel Alito reversing the lower court is just what you would expect.

The case involves the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, adopted in 1976 to provide a comprehensive statutory framework for deciding when foreign states will, or will not, be immune from suit in federal court. Generally speaking, the statute recognizes the traditional rule that foreign states have sovereign immunity, but codifies a variety of exceptions, mostly related to various forms of commercial activity. For those exceptions, the statute includes a specific framework of precisely what the exception requires and what if anything else is required for a federal court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute and personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Yesterday, June 5, the Supreme Court issued decisions in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., and BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• The Supreme Court just made it easier for White workers to sue for bias. Here’s why. (Jessica Guynn, USA Today)
• The Supreme Court Will Settle Trump’s Tariffs. But When? And How? (Elie Honig, New York Magazine)
• Why the Supreme Court just handed a big victory to gun manufacturers, in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico (Ian Millhiser, Vox)
• The Liberal Supreme Court Justices Keep Joining Conservatives. It’s Clear What They’re Doing. (Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, Slate)
• What Should We Make of Justice Kavanaugh’s Snope Opinion? (William Baude, Divided Argument)

Coming up: On Thursday, June 12, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:30 a.m. EDT that day for the opinion(s).