I'm John Batson calling on my colleague Richard Epstein to help me through matters that as an amateur, I think this is pretty straightforward.

But it turns out when you tangle with the Supreme Court, it gets complicated. Very complicated. Richard, I read from the Wall Street Journal editorial. Do you hear the

justices now mocks the editorial for people who deny it? That's the question for lower court

judges after the Supreme Court nixed a universal injunction that had barred the Trump administration

from even attempting to shrink the federal workforce.

Federal Workers Union challenged a February executive order directing agency heads to promptly undertake preparations

to initiate large-scale reductions in force

consistent with applicable law.

A lower court in May blocked the EO, barring the president's appointees,

for making plans on how to implement large-scale layoffs.

The plain language of this is the executive branch hires and fires.

So how is it to court's business, professor?

Well, let me first mention a couple of words that you did not mention,

which I think are extremely important.

What he said is consistent with applicable law.

And so what happens is there is no statement here whatsoever to engage in any form of illegality.

And this is a major concession on the part of the president and a necessary one,

because it is not the case that all people who work for the federal government can be dismissed at will. So the correct

procedure is to say there is no white ground whatsoever for a universal injunction on this.

What happens is you have to hold your fire and then if Mr. or Mr. X and Ms. Y is fired for

some reason which is inconsistent with

their contractual obligations or with the statutory framework, you bring that particular case.

...