A federal judge in Massachusetts has intervened to prevent the Trump administration from dismantling the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) without Congressional consent by halting a series of mass terminations and program shifts, actions the court determined exceeded the executive branch’s authority.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction against the administration’s proposed “reduction-in-force” (RIF) plan and mandated the reemployment of DOE staff dismissed since President Donald Trump assumed office. The judge further barred the federal government from reallocating the management of federal student loans and special education responsibilities to other executive branches.

Joun, an appointee of Joe Biden, reasoned that the administration was acting under the guise of “improving efficiency” at the DOE, but in actuality, was blatantly attempting to shutter the agency, an act that requires approval from Congress.

“This case arises out of an attempt by Defendants to shut down the Department without Congressional approval,” Joun wrote in the 88-page order, adding that Trump “has publicly and repeatedly promised to shut down the Department ‘immediately.””

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The judge went on to recount numerous instances in which the president declared that his ultimate goal was to eliminate the DOE, including a March 20 executive order directing DOE Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”

The administration asserted in court documents that the gutting of the department was aimed at improving overall “efficiency” and “accountability,” but according to Joun, those claims are contradicted by mounds of evidence.

“The record abundantly reveals that Defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute,” he wrote. “Indeed, prior to the RIF, the Department was already struggling to meet its goals, so it is only reasonable to expect that an RIF of this magnitude will likely cripple the Department. The idea that Defendants’ actions are merely a ‘reorganization’ is plainly not true.”

According to Juon, evidence provided by the consolidated plaintiffs, which include coalitions of states, school districts, nonprofit organizations, and labor unions, is “replete” with evidence that the administration’s actions have only left the DOE unable to carry out its statutory functions. While the defendants are authorized to reorganize the DOE “how they see fit,” the agency must remain capable of carrying out the mandates approved by Congress. Intentionally sabotaging the DOE would violate the separation of powers, “under which Congress holds the sole power to make laws and the Executive faithfully executes those laws,” per the court

“However, as has been established, the Defendants have not made it a secret that their goal is to do away with the Department entirely; they have publicly and repeatedly stated so,” Juon wrote. “These actions are plainly beyond the bounds of what Defendants can do, and Defendants do not point to any authority to the contrary. Indeed, ‘the simple proposition that the President may not, without Congress, fundamentally reorganize the federal agencies is not controversial.’”

Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the DOE, responded to the ruling by personally attacking the judge, a now-typical practice for senior White House officials.

“Once again, a far-left Judge has dramatically overstepped his authority, based on a complaint from biased plaintiffs, and issued an injunction against the obviously lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional for the American people,” she said in a statement. “President Trump and the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education clearly have the authority to make decisions about agency reorganization efforts, not an unelected Judge with a political axe to grind.”