Federal judge blocks trump's attempt to shut down education department

On May 22, 2025, in the United States, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the Trump administration from implementing plans to dismantle the Department of Education. The court ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by several educational groups and over two dozen states, which argued that the drastic staff cuts announced in March would cripple the agency’s ability to function. The layoffs were aimed at achieving efficiency, according to the administration, but the judge found no evidence supporting this claim. The court documented how mass layoffs, affecting over 1,300 employees or nearly 50% of the department’s workforce, rendered it incapable of performing crucial functions mandated by Congress, such as distributing financial aid and enforcing civil rights law. In his decision, Judge Joun asserted that the reductions in staffing created a scenario where the department could not fulfill its essential duties and responsibilities, emphasizing the significant risks involved in allowing the layoffs to proceed. In his ruling, Judge Joun criticized the administration’s approach, contrasting its claims of reorganization with the evident harms posed to vulnerable populations, particularly students reliant on educational support and programs. The plaintiffs noted that without adequate staffing, critical areas like special education and civil rights enforcement were particularly threatened. The ruling also blocked plans to transfer federal student loan management to other agencies, protecting the integrity of the Department from being dismantled without congressional approval, a necessary step for such major structural changes. The Trump administration responded with discontent, vowing to challenge the court's decision. Administration officials labeled the ruling as an overreach by an unelected judge and contended that they were committed to enhancing the department’s operational efficiency. Despite the administration's insistence on the legitimacy of its actions, the economic uncertainties and the stakes for students and families were underscored by legal advocates who viewed the ruling as a vital step in preserving educational standards and protecting funding critical for many institutions across the nation.