Supreme Court's new 'seismic' ruling with 'zero explanation' stuns legal experts

The U.S. Supreme Court has released another shadow docket decision with major implications for Department of Education employees on Monday, all without a "single word of explanation," according to legal experts.

Even though the court is currently on summer recess, it saw fit to take immediate action on the decision that allows the Trump administration to proceed with firing department employees.

This, as Education Secretary Linda McMahon continues to work to dismantle the department altogether.

The 6-3 decision saw the liberal justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting.

Immigration attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick called the ruling, "Yet another seismic decision fundamentally reshaping our system of government issued on the shadow docket with not even a single word of explanation."

University of Minnesota Law Professor Charlotte Garden posted to BlueSky, "I'm not pollyannaish about the Court, but I'm still shocked by this - there will be an enormous amount of chaos, and damage that cannot be undone. And zero explanation from the 6 justices in the majority."

Another professor, Steve Vladeck of Georgetown Law, posted, "Since April 4, #SCOTUS has issued 15 rulings on 17 emergency applications filed by Trump (three birthright citizenship apps were consolidated). It has granted relief to Trump ... in all 15 rulings. It has written majority opinions in only 3. Today's order is the 7th with no explanation *at all.*"

Attorney @benjaminkabak wrote, "As an attorney, I have to tell you it feels real s----- having 6 lunatics determine on a near-daily basis the law isn’t real so long as Trump says while not even bothering to offer up any half-a--ed explanation whatsoever. The Constitution is cooked."

Supreme Court Reporter Katie Buehler wrote, "The Supreme Court *allows* the Trump administration to move forward with large-scale layoffs at the Department of Education, where the government wants to fire ~50% of the workforce to 'streamline' the agency. Liberals dissent."

"Often even when I disagree with a Supreme Court decision I can see the reasoning behind it, but I honestly, truly do not understand this," wrote civil litigator Owen Barcala.