Since he took office, President Trump has ruthlessly attempted to unilaterally dismantle dozens of statutorily created agencies without congressional authorization. His administration abruptly laid off or furloughed thousands of workers, froze vital community programming and humanitarian aid, and paused, dismantled, or unlawfully ended countless health, safety, research, environmental, and cultural projects. This fundamental reorganization of the federal government was all undertaken without congressional authorization.

Several unions, nonprofits, and local governments challenged the administration’s actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In May 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Our brief made two principal points.

First, Congress has the sole authority to create, restructure, and abolish federal departments and agencies. The Constitution provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers,” including power over the existence of executive offices, “shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” It also grants Congress the exclusive power to “carr[y] into Execution” not only the “foregoing Powers” but also “all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”  The Supreme Court has held that these provisions authorize Congress to pass laws creating executive departments, agencies, and offices. Congress also has the power to restructure or abolish agencies as it finds necessary, and it has exercised this power since its earliest days.

Second, historical practice demonstrates that when Congress wants to give the President authority to reorganize the executive branch, it does so through legislation. From 1932 to 1984, Congress gave the President reorganization authority by passing and renewing a series of laws known as the Reorganization Acts. The history of these laws demonstrates that when Congress believes that delegating its reorganization power to the President will promote efficiency in government, it knows how to make such a delegation while, at the same time, limiting the scope of that delegation to protect against presidential overreach.

In May 2025, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, blocking the Trump administration’s attempts to unilaterally reorganize the federal government without congressional authorization. Quoting our brief, the court cited the “long history of Congress exercising its ‘power to restructure and abolish federal agencies as it finds necessary’” and concluded that the President had neither constitutional nor statutory authority to engage in such large-scale reorganizations without the cooperation of Congress.

The government moved for an emergency stay of the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the Ninth Circuit, and CAC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the stay.

On May 30, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s emergency stay application. Writing for the majority, Judge William Fletcher concluded that the factors governing stay requests all weighed in favor of the plaintiffs.  Referencing the history recounted in CAC’s brief, Judge Fletcher explained that the President has no constitutional authority to unilaterally reorganize the executive branch, and any power to do so must be delegated to him by Congress.  Because Congress hasn’t done so, the President’s executive order on reorganization is unlawful.

In July 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s order, concluding that the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful. The Court emphasized, however, that at this posture, it was not reviewing the specific reorganization plans proposed by the administration.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson concluded that the Government failed to show the exigency or irreparable harm that is required for emergency relief and asserted that the majority did not have enough information to determine the likelihood of success on the merits. Echoing our brief, Justice Jackson explained how “[e]ven the most cursory examination of history readily reveals that, over the past century, Presidents have worked with Congress—rather than around it—when seeking to significantly reorganize [Executive Branch] agencies,” as illustrated by the “many reorganization acts that Congress has passed since 1932.” This history, Justice Jackson explained, establishes constraints on the President’s power and preserves the democratic system that both allows Congress to make laws and prevents the President from “rewrit[ing] laws on his own.”