20 States and District of Columbia Sue Over U.S. Department of Education Mass Layoff

Quick Hits

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration after the U.S. Department of Education announced a mass layoff to cut the department’s workforce roughly in half.
• The states argue that the mass layoff nullifies the department’s mandated functions and violates the separation of powers doctrine.
• The states are asking the court to preliminarily enjoin the layoffs.

 The department announced the reduction in force (RIF) on March 11, 2025, to discharge approximately 1,378 employees, reducing the department’s workforce by roughly half. The plaintiffs allege constitutional, statutory, and regulatory violations, in addition to violations of established precedent. They argue that the reductions undermine the department’s ability to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. They also allege that reducing the department’s workforce by 50 percent violates the constitutional separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including an injunction to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the RIF.

The states claim the RIF is part of an unlawful attempt to dismantle the department and override the statutes that created and govern the department’s functions. The states argue that the Trump administration violated the separation of powers doctrine, the Take Care Clause, and the APA by acting contrary to the statutes that authorize and govern the department and by failing to provide any reasoned explanation or consider the consequences of their actions. They cite the president’s and the secretary of education’s public statements, and a department press release, as evidence of their intent to shut down the department.

The complaint details the impacts the RIF may have on offices and programs that administer and enforce federal laws and regulations related to education, civil rights, student aid, disability services, and funding for schools affected by federal property. The states claim the RIF will harm the states and their residents by depriving them of federal funding, guidance, technical assistance, oversight, accountability, data collection, research, and protection and enforcement of civil rights and privacy rights for students.

The lawsuit alleges the RIF usurps the U.S. Congress’s authority to create, abolish, or restructure executive agencies, and fails to take care that the laws governing the Department of Education’s functions be faithfully executed. The states claim the RIF is arbitrary and capricious and exceeds the secretary of education’s authority to reallocate functions within the department.

The case emphasizes the importance of the Department of Education’s role in providing funds for low-income children, students with disabilities, and enforcement of antidiscrimination laws in education.

The states involved are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington.

Next Steps

It is too soon to tell what the federal court will decide in this case. This lawsuit has the potential to set significant precedent with respect to separation of powers and the limits of executive authority in restructuring federal agencies. One possible outcome is legislative action by Congress to address or counteract the executive actions at issue.

If the RIF is not overturned, school districts and colleges may experience a delay in receiving federal funds for K-12 education, special education services, Pell Grants, and vocational rehabilitation services. They may experience a delay or decline in enforcement of civil rights laws and privacy laws pertaining to students.

Ogletree Deakins’ Higher Education Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Higher Education and Reductions in Force blogs as new information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ New Administration Resource Hub.

Lisa Karen Atkins is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Birmingham office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts