In May, Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Myong Joun blocked the Trump administration from making substantial cuts to the Department of Education.

Although the Supreme Court later lifted Joun's injunction, he is now being accused of defying America's highest judicial body. 

Dispute concerns cuts at the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights

According to Reuters, that allegation was put forward late last week in a brief authored by Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys.

It was submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this past Thursday after Joun indicated that another injunction remained in effect.

The judge had previously found that President Donald Trump's cuts to the Department of Education's budget was an attempt to "dismantle the department without an authorizing statute."

That decision came following a challenge brought by Democratic-led states, school districts and teachers' unions, with Joun ordering laid off staff to be rehired.

While six of the Supreme Court's nine justices reversed Joun's injunction, he also heard arguments brought by two students and the Victim Rights Law Center, an entity which represents sexual assault victims.

Joun's second injunction ordered staff at the Office of Civil Rights to be rehired

This led Joun to issue a separate injunction barring the Department of Education from reducing staff at its Office of Civil Rights by half.

The DOJ asserted that Joun should have vacated this order in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, but the district judge disagreed.

Trump administration claims judge defied Supreme Court to bar Education Department firings https://t.co/cOqP9MzUPJ https://t.co/cOqP9MzUPJ

— Reuters (@Reuters) August 16, 2025

Joun pointed out how the Supreme Court did not directly address his second injunction regarding the Office of Civil Rights and described its brief order as being "unreasoned."

DOJ says Joun's refusal is "an affront to the Supreme Court’s authority"

What's more, Joun complained that the government has "not substantially complied with the preliminary injunction order" as the employees in question haven't returned to work.

Additionally, plaintiffs in the case maintained that vacating the injunction would "reward the government’s noncompliance with extraordinary equitable relief."

In their appeal to the First Circuit, the DOJ alleged that "[t]he district court’s disregard of the Supreme Court’s ruling represents an affront to the Supreme Court’s authority—and thus to the rule of law in the United States."

"In order to avoid the need for the government to potentially burden the Supreme Court with yet another emergency application, this Court should accordingly enter an immediate administrative stay and a stay pending appeal," the DOJ added.