The US Supreme Court emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket, has 7 cases still pending a decision with some implications for state and local governments, including cases on immigration, education, and federal layoffs.

Multiple cases remain on the US Supreme Court emergency docket that could directly, and indirectly, effect state and local governments. Here is a quick rundown of what could have potential impacts in Maryland communities and could see a decision any day.

McMahon v. New York –  Pending Layoffs at the US Department of Education

• Issue: Thousands of employees at the US Department of Education have been in limbo as the legal back-and-forth remains unresolved. This was triggered in March when the department initiated mass firings after being ordered by the White House to begin taking actions to close the federal education agency and transfer existing authority to states. In May, US District Judge Myong Joun issued a court-ordered reversal of the initial reduction in force that cut the agency by about 2,000 employees – roughly half the staff. The US Education Department did reinstate the employees that were terminated but then put them on administrative leave while they appealed the decision. After being denied a stay by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the question then went to the US Supreme Court. The Department of Education now is asking the justices to stay the lower court order and allow them to move forward with eliminating the positions. As of recent, it is being widely reported that the agency is spending $7M a month to federal workers on administrative leave since the injunction was issued.
• State and Local Impact: Local school system administrators and the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) will feel the burden most directly if the elimination of the federal agency moves forward. The primary service disruptions and impacts felt locally include funding and technical support for programs aimed at supporting the most vulnerable learners in public schools including resource scarce students, English learners, and students with disabilities. Federal student loan programs, research and data collection, and discrimination investigations would also be eliminated or left as a state and local responsibility in order to fill the gap. Depending on the need per category and by jurisdiction, the pressure to step in will be on the state and local governments at a time when the state budget challenges are great and have lead to unprecedented cost shifts onto county governments.

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) – Pending Layoffs Across 21 Federal Agencies

• Issue: Similar to the previous case, Trump v. AFGE addresses the implementation of large-scale cut backs across the entire federal workforce. These cuts were initiated by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency in February as part of a broad downsizing plan across the federal government. Following a lawsuit, US District Judge Susan Illston, who sits on the federal court in San Francisco, issued a preliminary injunction which covers 21 federal agencies. The administration then filed a request to stay the injunction before removing that request and refiling a similar one that is currently pending on the SCOTUS shadow docket and could be acted on at any point.
• State and Local Impact: The implications of large scale federal government layoffs in Maryland are significant and impact relatively higher earners. The Maryland Department of Labor has been regularly reporting these numbers for three months since the layoffs and departures began, with the most recent publication last week. This has the effect of diminishing tax revenues statewide and potentially increasing unemployment payouts for those that apply and are approved. This looms over the existing state budget challenges that are anticipated, by state officials, to increase in the coming years. Recent reports show that about 250,000 Maryland residents are federal workers and the state is home to more than 200,000 government contractors. With multiple injunctions still in place pending decisions from the Supreme Court, the full impact of the consequences of the continued loss of federal jobs have yet to be realized.

Uthmeier v. Florida Immigrant Coalition – Expanded State and Local Authority on Immigration Enforcement

• Issue: Increased immigration and customs enforcement is a priority of the current administration and those efforts have been reinforced by some state’s looking to implement some of their own measures to meet a similar end. In early 2025 the Florida State Legislature passed a law effectively allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to broadly enforce federal immigration law by essentially criminalizing the entry into and presence within Florida of those who have illegally entered the United States. Following a lawsuit, two courts have blocked the law from taking effect and being enforced. The case is currently pending a decision by the Supreme Court as to whether they will reverse the lower court orders and allow the law to take effect. Another case with broad implications for citizenship standards –  Trump v. CASA – is also pending a shadow docket decision, and could significantly alter the legal interpretation of birthright citizenship.
• State and Local Impact: The Maryland State Legislature has effectively banned the field enforcement of immigration and customs law by state and local law enforcement agencies with legislation passed in the last few years. With the recent changeover of the federal administration, and new initiatives by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Maryland General Assembly has made an effort to adjust some current law concerning immigration enforcement. A bill from the 2025 legislative session, HB 1222, included provisions that would, at times, have required detention centers and law enforcement agents to detain and transfer to ICE certain individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States. This bill was heavily amended and passed on the final days of session without any of those provisions included, but could come back in subsequent sessions. The outcome of this case could set a new precedent for what types of immigration and customs enforcement authority a state can grant itself, and local governments, in the state lawmaking process.