On July 8, the Supreme Court lifted a district court order which barred the Trump administration from eliminating thousands of jobs across the federal government. Though an important case, this isn’t the end of litigation over those firings. However, those seeking to oppose these RIFs (Reductions in Force) will now need to challenge them in a more piecemeal fashion, making such litigation more challenging and expensive.

First raised in the 1980s, the Unitary Executive Theory argues that the President should be allowed to fire the officials of all agencies, even if the positions are protected by Congress. President Trump’s administration has extended this theory beyond recognition to argue that agencies can refuse to spend money authorized by Congress, fire federal workers without following legal guidelines, and eliminate certain federal agencies completely. Dozens of cases are ongoing that will decide just how far the power of the Executive Branch can go.

In Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court held that injunctions cannot be used to prohibit the Executive Branch from taking legal actions against persons or states not before the Court. In this case, that meant that persons in the 38 states that did not join the lawsuit wishing to claim U.S. citizenship based on their birth in the U.S. must bring their own legal case. This ban on universal injunctions will also affect dozens of other cases against the Trump administration.