On March 13, 2025, 21 attorneys general representing 20 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its plan to place approximately fifty percent of Department of Education (Department) employees on administrative leave. The case, New York State, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 13, 2025, under Case No. 1:25-cv-10601. Plaintiffs are seeking a judicial declaration that the reduction in force (RIF) constitutes an illegal dismantling of the Department in violation of both Article I and the separation of powers principle of the Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, they seek injunctive relief vacating the defendants' actions and permanently enjoining agency defendants from implementing President Trump's directive to dismantle the Department, including through the RIF. The Department itself is named as a defendant, as are President Trump and Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, in their respective official capacities.
The Department first announced the RIF via a press release on March 11, 2025, indicating that it had taken action to reduce the workforce from over 4,000 workers (as of President Trump's 2024 inauguration) to approximately 2,183 workers. Impacted employees will be placed on administrative leave effective March 21, 2025, receiving full pay and benefits through June 9, 2025. The press release offered no further explanation about the basis of the RIF, except for McMahon's statement that it "reflects the Department of Education's commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers."
The Massachusetts lawsuit alleges that McMahon later confirmed her intent to shut the Department down entirely following the press release (see Compl. ¶ 2) (citing Filip Timotija, Education Secretary: Mass Layoffs First Step Toward Total Shutdown, The Hill (Mar. 12, 2025)). According to the complaint, this stated intent is consistent with President Trump's own reported wish to dismantle the Department (see Compl. ¶¶ 114–17).
In summary, the complaint argues that if the RIF is allowed to stand, it will effectively abolish the Department—an act that can only be carried out by Congress. Specifically, it summarizes the effects of the RIF on the Department's many offices and duties before concluding that "the RIF has so severely impaired the Department of Education that it can no longer function and cannot comply with its statutory requirements" (see Compl. ¶¶ 55–134). For example, the complaint alleges that "[o]n information and belief, the majority of staff in the Office for Civil Rights," which was created by Congress and codified at 20 U.S.C. § 3413, has "been eliminated or otherwise removed" (see Compl. ¶ 122).
The plaintiffs assert that defendants run afoul of the Separation of Powers doctrine, as well as the executive branch's constitutional duty to "'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'" by interfering with the Department's ability to carry out congressional mandates (see Compl. ¶¶ 149–65). The complaint argues that, per the Administrative Procedure Act, the Department lacks authority to implement the RIF, as the RIF or other efforts to dismantle the Department explicitly contravene Congress's statutory mandates. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that the RIF was "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because the reasons for reducing the Department's workforce, including promoting "efficiency" and "accountability," are mere pretexts for the President's ultimate goal of eliminating the Department entirely (see Compl. ¶¶ 183–95).
The current RIF is likely to impact institutions of higher education (IHEs) in a number of ways. Notably, the RIF allegedly terminated employees who were crucial to certifying schools to participate in Federal Student Aid programs and overseeing federal student loan services. Additionally, it impacts the Department's role in directing and coordinating programs that provide financial assistance to more than 12 million students in postsecondary institutions (see Compl. ¶¶ 128–32).
Should the administration succeed in dismantling the Department of Education entirely, the impact on IHEs would, needless to say, be considerably more severe, leaving many civil rights protections unenforced and student financial assistance programs, including loan servicing, in limbo.
Steptoe will closely monitor developments and provide ongoing updates on this case and actions taken by the Department. We remain available to help with your institution's assessment of risk and compliance efforts as you navigate the changing regulatory landscape.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
