Remember DOGEthe Elon Musk-led “government efficiency” project that sowed chaos during President Donald Trump’s first few months in office, laid off tens of thousands of federal workers, and then disappeared as suddenly as it began?
If you didn’t lose your job in one of Musk’s federal employee layoffs, or you’re not one of the remaining civil servants who have to figure out how to do your job without many colleagues around, DOGE is probably a memory. But the legacy of this era of indiscriminate shooting is he is still being prosecuted in federal courtand Judge Amy Coney Barrett has delivered devastating news to nearly every citizen who works in the federal government.
On the surface, the decision of the Supreme Court in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judgeswhich was released Tuesday, is slightly removed from Elon’s brief tenure as Trump’s human resources manager. The case is about whether federal immigration judges have a First Amendment right to make public speeches about immigration law. And the Supreme Court ultimately decided to dismiss the case using a procedural argument that has limited implications for federal employees.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion joined by Barrett, wrote a separate opinion that would have allowed Trump to strip all federal employees of the employment protections that most federal workers have. enjoyed since the reign of Chester A. Arthur.
When Thomas often takes a strong positionBarrett is a moderate who is close to the center of the GOP-controlled Supreme Court. So, if Barrett is willing to endorse one of Thomas’ neat tricks to end civil service protections, that’s a clear sign that the majority of the Court agrees with his position.
Republican judges have long supported a legal theory known as “unity executive,” which holds that the president must have the power to fire high-level government officials who lead federal agencies. it has not been historically understood removing employment protection for civil servants and other low-level federal employees.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent Morrison vs. Olson (1988), which is considered something of a holy book for supporters of the unitary government, referred to the president’s power to “remove executive officers” — “officials” are top government employees — but did not say that the president must be able to fire every postal worker or Social Security clerk.
In Margolinhowever, Thomas and Barrett suggest a way to bridge this gap between agency leaders and ordinary public servants. Trump can simply fire all government officials who decide civil service disputes, and then the civil servants will not have any enforceable rights.
Barrett, in other words, seems to believe that civil service protections only exist if the president wants them to exist. And if he says so, it is likely that most of the Court will do so.
Why civil service protection is important for modern government
If you watched a Netflix show Death by Lightning, which was about the short presidency of James A. Garfield, or like you read the book that the show was based onyou got a good picture of the president’s life before the civil service reform.
As writer Candice Millard wrote, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers hoping to land a government job “began to form before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had finished his meal, “it flew down at full speed, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” As president, Garfield was expected to meet with each of these job seekers and place them in jobs – often depending on whether they had a politically powerful patron.
This system was inefficient, as it forced the federal government to replace many of its employees every time the White House changed hands. It diverted much of the president’s attention to low-level employment decisions. It fostered corruption, as often the only way to get a government job was to do favors with a senator, congressman, or other powerful person who could act as a job seeker’s patron. And it succeeded very difficult for the government to hire highly skilled workers.
Why would someone go to the trouble of, say, getting a degree in economics and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy if they knew that their job at the Treasury Department would melt away the minute their party lost an election?
President Arthur signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, shortly after Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker. It was the first of several laws ensuring that the government did not have to replace every Republican postal worker or FBI agent with a Democrat if a Republican president lost an election.
Modern civil service laws also prohibit political leadership of the federal government forcing public servants to do political activities. They provide protection to whistleblowers. And they generally ensure that the government will be staffed with competent professionals who provide continuity throughout the president’s administration.
Federal civil service laws are primarily enforced by an agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Public servants who believe their rights as federal employees have been violated must file their case with the MSPB, which gets first crack at resolving these types of disputes.
Early in his second presidency, however, Trump took several steps that seemed designed to shut down the MSPB. He dismissed one of the Board members, thus depriving the MSPB of the quorum it needs to function. He also fired U.S. Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, the official who investigates allegations of civil service violations and brought cases to the MSPB, and tried to replace Dellinger with a right-wing podcast.
Since then, Trump has taken some steps to reinvigorate the MSPB. The board now has two members, namely The minimum level needs to work. The broadcaster withdrew from consideration of replacing Dellinger after Politico reported that the broadcaster said he had “The Nazi streak in me from time to time.” And Trump later was given the duties of Dellinger to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
So, while there are good reasons to believe that MSPB has decreased significantly due to Trump’s actions, the Board currently has the minimum number of staff it needs to operate. But that was not true for the first several months of Trump’s second administration, when it had only one member and was therefore unable to resolve civil service disputes.
Barrett would allow Trump to end civil service protections by firing MSPB members
The most interesting issue in Margolin the case is about what would have happened if Trump had never appointed a second member of the MSPB, leaving the Board inactive.
A federal appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, ruled Margolin in June 2025, during which the MSPB was shut down. The court suggested that, if the MSPB does not work, then the federal court must intervene and hear civil service disputes which would otherwise be heard by the MSPB – because, otherwise, the federal civil service laws would cease to operate.
On Tuesday, the full Supreme Court turning the Fourth Circuitalthough it did so on a narrow basis. The Court’s full opinion at Margolin simply states that the Fourth Circuit should not have commented on what happens when the MSPB is dissolved, because plaintiffs in Margolin they did not address this issue in their brief.
But Thomas accompanying commentswhich was joined by Barrett, rejects the Fourth Circuit’s argument outright. He says that federal law states that public servants must bring employment disputes to the MSPB, and if there is no MSPB, that means they are out of luck.
So, as a practical matter, Trump could gain the power to fire any federal employee by firing one of the two current members of the MSPB. If that happens, the MSPB will cease to function, and federal government employees will be exempt from any legal remedies, even if they were illegally fired for being Democrats.
Despite the far-reaching implications of Barrett’s decision to join Thomas’s view, it is hardly surprising. Last July, on McMahon vs. New York (2025), the Court allowed the Trump administration to do lay off about half of the Department of Education’s staff. Although three of the Court’s Democrats dissented McMahonthe majority Republican justices did not explain their decision; It was decided on the shadow document of the Court, by the judges they often do not explain their reasons in those cases.
However, McMahon it was an early sign that the majority of Republicans on the Court do not support civil service protections, or believe that such laws should be enforced. Barrett’s decision to join Thomas Margolin comments also suggest that he has such views.
It appears, in other words, that this Supreme Court wants to dismantle the agreement that was reached in 1883 – that the federal government should have a professional civil service that cannot be eliminated just because the Republican Party controls the White House. Barrett’s move suggests Trump has a lot of freedom to continue firing people, even if federal law should prevent him from doing so.
