A federal court ruling on Thursday halted a major move by the Trump administration to downsize—and ultimately dismantle—the U.S. Department of Education. In a significant decision, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction preventing further cuts and ordering the reinstatement of hundreds of employees affected by mass layoffs earlier this year.

The ruling centered on the legality of a broad executive order signed by former President Donald Trump in March. That order initiated what was described as a “reorganization” of the Department of Education, but in practice, it triggered the termination of more than 1,300 employees, alongside about 600 voluntary departures. The workforce of the department was effectively reduced by nearly half.

In his opinion, Judge Joun criticized the administration’s justification for the move, which framed the mass reduction as a matter of efficiency rather than elimination. “It is only reasonable to expect that an RIF [reduction in force] of this magnitude will likely cripple the Department,” Joun wrote. “The idea that Defendants’ actions are merely a ‘reorganization’ is plainly not true.”

Although the administration acknowledged that formally closing the Department of Education would require Congressional approval, including overcoming a likely filibuster in the Senate, it insisted the layoffs were within the legal authority of the Secretary of Education. Judge Joun disagreed, calling the administration’s logic “contradictory” and unsupported by the record.

The Department of Education, established in 1979, has long been a target for elimination by some political factions. Former President Trump openly campaigned on reducing the size and scope of the federal education system, viewing education policy as a state-level issue. This latest attempt to curtail its operations, however, has now been brought to a standstill by the judiciary.

Reacting to the court’s decision, Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann criticized the ruling and emphasized that the administration would appeal. “President Trump and the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education clearly have the authority to make decisions about agency reorganization efforts,” she stated. “This ruling is not in the best interest of American students or families. We will immediately challenge this on an emergency basis.”

The legal battle is expected to continue, with broader implications for the limits of executive authority when it comes to reconfiguring federal agencies.

In a separate but equally consequential development, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a rare 4-4 split decision in a case involving the nation’s first religious charter school. The proposed Catholic virtual school in Oklahoma had been ruled unconstitutional by that state’s supreme court. The high court’s deadlock effectively upholds that decision, though it sets no national precedent.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case without providing a reason. She has past ties to legal professionals involved in the case, which may have influenced her decision. Her absence left the court evenly divided and unable to issue a definitive ruling.

The case had drawn national attention, with religious organizations viewing it as a potential gateway for expanding access to public funding for faith-based educational institutions. In recent years, the court’s conservative majority had generally ruled in favor of expanding religious rights in public settings, including education.

Critics of the proposed school argued that allowing it to operate as a publicly funded charter institution could blur the constitutional line between church and state, fundamentally reshaping public education in religious contexts.

Supporters, on the other hand, saw the school as part of a broader push for educational freedom and parental choice. The outcome leaves the door open for future legal challenges, as evenly split decisions do not create binding legal precedent. Religious advocacy groups have already indicated plans to file a revised case.

The brief, unsigned order from the Supreme Court provided no details on the justices’ individual positions, but oral arguments from April revealed pointed questions and apparent hesitation from some members, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, who often plays a pivotal role in close decisions.

Taken together, the two rulings—one from a district court and the other from the Supreme Court—reflect the ongoing complexity of federal power, education policy, and the judicial system’s role in navigating the boundaries of governance. Whether it’s the restructuring of a department or the recognition of a religious charter school, these legal decisions have profound consequences, and the full scope of their impact remains to be seen.

As the legal battles move forward, one thing is clear: the future of American education—both its structure and its values—is far from settled.