The modern Department of Education (“the Department”) was created in 1979 after over 100 years of congressional efforts to coordinate federal educational policy. Yet President Trump has attempted to unilaterally eliminate the Department of Education without congressional authorization, nominating Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “put herself out of a job.” His administration abruptly laid off or furloughed thousands of Department of Education employees and froze funding for the Department’s vital programs.   

A broad coalition of individuals with school-aged children and groups representing students, parents, and educators challenged the Administration’s actions in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the dismantling of the Department. In July 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress urging the court to grant an injunction. Our brief made three 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.”  These provisions authorize Congress to pass laws creating executive departments, agencies, and offices. Indeed, some of the first statutes Congress passed created our nation’s first Departments. 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 confirms 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.  

Third, the Department is a statutorily mandated agency, and President Trump does not have the power to abolish it unilaterally. The creation of the Department in 1979 is a quintessential example of Congress and the executive branch working together in their respective constitutional lanes to structure the federal government so that it best serves the American people. When President Carter saw the need for a new agency to consolidate the many federal education functions, he knew he could not create that agency unilaterally. Instead, he exercised his authority to “recommend” to Congress that it pass a law creating such an agency. Congress ultimately agreed and passed the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, creating the modern Department and mandating that it carry out a number of core functions. Since the Department was created, Presidents have taken different views of the role the federal government should play in education, but none has attempted to unilaterally shutter the Department until now.  

In short, our brief argued that the President cannot abolish the Education Department without an act of Congress.    

In August 2025, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that “the current fabric of the law” prevented plaintiffs from demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. The court cited similar cases brought by other litigants, including the states of New York and California, that resulted in the Supreme Court staying much of the exact relief sought by plaintiffs in this case and, in light of them, concluded that there are “serious concerns about this court’s authority to order the relief Plaintiffs seek.”