The Justice Department, now under President Donald Trump, has moved to delay several high-profile legal cases involving student debt and environmental regulations.
This action allows the new administration time to review and potentially reverse policies enacted during former President Joe Biden's tenure, as Fox Business reports.
On Friday, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris presented motions requesting the Supreme Court to halt proceedings on the specified cases. The matters under consideration include a controversial challenge to Biden's student loan bailout initiative and three cases concerning environmental rules instituted by the Environmental Protection Agency during Biden’s term. These requests, if accepted, will pause all upcoming written briefings and postpone scheduled hearings.
The Supreme Court was originally scheduled to hear arguments for the cases in March or April. Decisions were anticipated to follow later in the term. However, with the administration's request, these timelines now hang in the balance, pending the court's response to the motions filed by Harris.
The student debt issue involves a sweeping bailout policy that saw over five million Americans have their student loans forgiven through efforts initiated by the Department of Education under Biden. The policy also included a borrower defense rule designed to assist students defrauded by their educational institutions by providing further debt relief.
In response to Biden's borrower defense rule, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals raised concerns, pointing out "numerous statutory and regulatory shortcomings" within the legislation. The rule's future faced uncertainty as the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to address the case earlier this month. However, the Trump administration's requested delay now casts doubt on its progression.
If President Trump chooses to revoke the borrower defense rule, as has been speculated, the case may be deemed irrelevant, negating the need for the Supreme Court's involvement. This scenario mirrors strategies previously employed by the Biden administration when dealing with cases initiated under Trump’s prior tenure.
Beyond student loans, the Trump Justice Department is also targeting three cases linked to Biden-era environmental policies. These stem from regulations enacted by the EPA during the former president's time in office. The specifics of these regulations have not been disclosed, but the implications are significant, signaling a potential shift in environmental policy direction.
Upon taking power, President Biden's team similarly asked the Supreme Court to sideline a challenge concerning Trump's allocation of military funds for the construction of a border wall. Biden ultimately stopped the spending, which led to that case's dismissal. This recent action by Trump’s DOJ suggests a similar approach to reshaping previous policies by rendering ongoing legal battles unnecessary.
There appears to be a historical pattern when presidential administrations change hands. This is highlighted in the "Remain in Mexico" policy situation, which the Biden administration reversed after Trump had implemented it. That reversal led to the Supreme Court's dismissal of the corresponding case as irrelevant.
By applying similar tactics, Trump's DOJ could aim to dissolve current challenges by rescinding policies they deem incompatible with their platform. Such strategies may quickly alter the landscape of both student debt relief and environmental regulations as the courts and administration continue engaging in legal and political battles.
Conversation around these delays often centers on the broader implications such judicial freezes have on public policy and governance. During transitions between administrations, the course of action taken by the DOJ might set far-reaching precedents, impacting various policy areas and future presidencies.
Should the Supreme Court decide to approve the Justice Department’s request, this might open an avenue to further changes in how student loan relief and environmental regulations are handled moving forward. It remains to be seen how these shifts will affect public opinion or the practical application of government programs.
