NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal appeals court refused to grant the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) request to put a temporary halt on a district judge’s preliminary injunction last week, preventing the Trump administration from moving ahead with plans to dismantle the department.
Washington, D.C., and two states previously requested the court to halt the announced DOE and Trump administration’s planned Reduction in Force (RIF) of half of the remaining employees at the DOE, as well as the closure of the department.
The dismantling was announced on March 11, 2025, and two days later, the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump and others were sued in the District of Massachusetts.
Following suit, five labor organizations and two school districts did the same.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ASKS SCOTUS TO APPROVE DEI-RELATED EDUCATION CUTS
The plaintiffs requested the court for an injunction against the transfer of certain functions out of the Department, which Trump announced on March 21.
The District Court merged the two cases, and after reviewing the factual findings, issued an order to place a stop on the president’s actions.
The Trump administration appealed the decision and requested a temporary stop to the district court’s order, but on Wednesday that request was denied.
WASHINGTON AG JOINS COALITION SUING TO BLOCK TRUMP’S ORDER TO DISMANTLE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a swearing in ceremony for interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. Jeanine Pirro in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump has announced Pirro, a former Fox News personality, judge, prosecutor, and politician, after losing support in the Senate for his first choice, Ed Martin, over his views on the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
“What is at stake in this case, the District Court found, was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department,” the court of appeals wrote. “Given the extensive findings made by the District Court and the absence of any contrary evidence having been submitted by the appellants, we conclude that the appellants’ stay motion does not warrant our interfering with the ordinary course of appellate…
Click Here to Read the Full Original Article at FOX News : Politics…