Updated July 8 at 7:42 p.m.

Federal agencies across government can resume laying off their employees en masse after the Supreme Court reversed a court order that barred those reductions, with several agencies likely to move swiftly to start cutting staff.

The court once again ruled in favor of the Trump administration in its push to expand the president’s power to slash agency workforce rolls as he sees fit after it reversed a lower court order that impacted most major federal departments. Dozens of reduction-in-force actions were held up by the now-defunct injunction and agencies have been working behind the scenes to quickly resume those activitiesonce that block fell.

The case landed at the Supreme Court after a district judge in California ruled in favor of the unions, municipalities and advocacy groups that sued over Trump’s workforce reduction plans and an appeals court subsequently allowed that ruling to remain in place.

The plaintiffs argued the Trump administration must receive congressional approval for its reorganization plans, including those seeking to lay off federal workers. Trump circumvented that obligation by issuing an executive order—and subsequent implementation guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget—calling for mass layoffs, they said.

Reversing the injunction, the plaintiffs said, would amount to the Supreme Court “greenlighting the dismantling of the federal government in a manner that will later be effectively impossible to undo.”

“Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied— we grant the application,” the majority wrote for the court. It added that it did not express a view on the specific reorganization and RIF plans from individual agencies.

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented on the application for a stay of the injunction, agreeing with the plaintiffs that Trump circumvented Congress and suggesting her colleagues have greenlit “all the harmful upheaval that edict entails.” She argued the majority ignored the fact-based findings of the lower courts and the high court’s decision was “hubristic and senseless.”