Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The Justice Department reversed the agency’s position on a redistricting dispute currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, the department asked the justices to halt the processing of pending student loan and environmental regulation cases.
The new court filings were issued on Jan. 24, days after President Donald Trump was inaugurated.
Position changes in high-profile court cases often take place when a new party assumes the presidency. After President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) also changed position on several court cases that were pending at the time.
The DOJ’s new court filings leave the door open to the Supreme Court resuming processing of the student debt and environmental cases in the future, but also suggest the cases may become moot if the Trump administration decides to undo the Biden administration policies that prompted the various lawsuits.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who is currently the Trump administration’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court, said in a new court filing that the DOJ has changed its position in the redistricting case.
She is also asking the court to halt all written briefing deadlines in the student loan case and two environmental cases, which would suspend the processing of those cases indefinitely. Before the court hears oral argument in a case, it typically asks the litigants to file briefs outlining the legal arguments they intend to make.
In legal parlance, Harris filed motions to hold the briefing schedule in those three cases in abeyance. In other words, she asked the court to suspend briefings until the new administration can decide how to proceed.
Trump has nominated attorney John Sauer as solicitor general. Sauer, who was Missouri’s solicitor general from 2017, represented Trump at the Supreme Court in his successful bid for immunity after being prosecuted for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Student Debt Case
Harris filed an abeyance motion with the Supreme Court in U.S. Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas. The court granted the petition on Jan. 10. The oral argument has not been scheduled.
An association of colleges challenged the Biden-era Department of Education’s rule establishing the procedures that student borrowers can follow to show that they were defrauded by the schools they attended and thereby qualify for student loan forgiveness. Some borrowers claim that schools committed fraud by using unethical recruitment tactics or by advertising exaggerated post-graduation job placement figures.
A lower court issued a ruling halting the department-directed expansion of defenses that student loan borrowers can use to contest repayment.
“After the change in Administration, the Acting Secretary of Education has determined that the Department should reassess the basis for and soundness of the Department’s borrower-defense regulations,” Harris wrote in the motion.
California Emissions Dispute
Harris filed an abeyance motion with the high court in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13, 2024, to decide whether it would revive a lawsuit filed by energy companies over California’s tough vehicle emissions standards. The court has not yet scheduled oral argument in the case.
A lower court ruled that California had the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. That court held that the energy companies bringing the legal action could not demonstrate that they had legal standing to sue, meaning they couldn’t show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in the lawsuit.
Energy companies told the Supreme Court in their petition that they will suffer economic harm if California, whose state economy is large, is allowed to continue imposing vehicle emissions standards that are more stringent than those mandated by the federal government.
California’s policy stances are influential, and several states have already adopted its regulatory framework for automobiles. California says its policies are needed to fight climate change by driving down demand for liquid fuel.
“After the change in Administration, EPA’s Acting Administrator has determined that the agency should reassess the basis for and soundness of the 2022 reinstatement decision,” Harris wrote, referring to a regulatory action taken by the EPA.
“Such a reassessment could obviate the need for this Court to determine whether petitioners had Article III standing to challenge that decision.”
Article III of the U.S. Constitution governs federal courts and has been interpreted as stating those courts may only hear cases involving actual controversies in which at least one litigant has standing to sue.
Other Environmental Cases
The DOJ also asked the Supreme Court to pause the processing of two other cases that dispute EPA actions.
Both are about the federal Clean Air Act, which provides that challenges to “nationally applicable regulations” may “be filed only” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the first case, Oklahoma v. EPA, which has been consolidated with Pacificorp v. EPA, Oklahoma and other states argue that state disputes over EPA policies should be heard in regional circuit courts, rather than in the nation’s capital.
The Supreme Court granted the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. No oral argument has yet been scheduled.
At issue is the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule that cracks down on states whose industries are said to be contributing to smog.
The Clean Air Act requires each state to adopt an implementation plan to comply with national standards, which the EPA then reviews, but in 2023, the agency drafted its own rule after rejecting 23 states’ plans for meeting national ozone standards.
In February 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit determined that challenges to EPA disapproval of the state plans could be filed only in the D.C. Circuit.
The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on June 27, 2024, to temporarily put the EPA’s rule on hold. The court held that the emissions-reduction standards established by the EPA’s plan would probably cause irreversible harm to several of the affected states unless the plan were stayed until it could be reviewed by the lower courts.
The states said the regulation was illegal, costly, and could lead to blackouts, while the EPA said the rule was urgently needed to fight air pollution. They said the EPA’s plan undermines the principles of the Clean Air Act.
In the second case, EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, oil refineries argue they should be exempted from a federal mandate that the gasoline they produce should be made with a percentage of ethanol.
The Supreme Court approved the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. Oral argument has not been scheduled by the court.
The EPA argued the case should be heard by the D.C. Circuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in November 2023 that it—and not the D.C. Circuit—was the proper forum for that appeal.
Harris used identical language in part of the Oklahoma v. EPA abeyance motion and the EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining abeyance motion.
“After the change in Administration, EPA’s Acting Administrator has determined that the agency should reassess the basis for and soundness of the underlying disapproval action,” Harris wrote. “Such a reassessment could obviate the need for this Court to determine the proper venue for challenges to that action.”
Redistricting Case
In the redistricting case, the Supreme Court decided on Nov. 4, 2024, the day before the presidential election, to take up the racial gerrymandering dispute known as Louisiana v. Callais, which was consolidated with the related case of Robinson v. Callais.
Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor a particular party or constituency.
A federal district judge in 2022 had ordered the Republican-controlled Louisiana State Legislature to revise its electoral map, which provided for one black-majority congressional district, because it discriminated against black voters, who constitute almost one-third of the state’s population.
The Legislature complied, approving a new map that featured two black-majority districts. Map opponents told the Supreme Court in briefs that the new redistricting plan discriminated against non-black voters.
A panel of three federal district judges then sided with the non-black voters, determining in April 2024 that the map could not be used in upcoming elections. The Supreme Court intervened and stayed that order, allowing the map to be used.
Harris told the justices in a Jan. 24 letter that the Biden-era DOJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 23, 2024, arguing that there was “a strong basis in evidence” for the single federal district judge to believe a new map had to be drawn to bring the state into compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act. On Jan. 16, while Biden was still president, the DOJ also asked to participate in the oral argument of the case.
But with “the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the government’s position in these cases,” and the Biden-era brief “no longer represents the position of the United States.”
The DOJ is also “withdrawing its pending motion to participate in the oral argument,” Harris wrote.
Oral argument in the case has not yet been scheduled.
It is unclear when the Supreme Court will respond to the change in position in the redistricting case and to the abeyance motions.
Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The Justice Department reversed the agency’s position on a redistricting dispute currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, the department asked the justices to halt the processing of pending student loan and environmental regulation cases.
The new court filings were issued on Jan. 24, days after President Donald Trump was inaugurated.
Position changes in high-profile court cases often take place when a new party assumes the presidency. After President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) also changed position on several court cases that were pending at the time.
The DOJ’s new court filings leave the door open to the Supreme Court resuming processing of the student debt and environmental cases in the future, but also suggest the cases may become moot if the Trump administration decides to undo the Biden administration policies that prompted the various lawsuits.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who is currently the Trump administration’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court, said in a new court filing that the DOJ has changed its position in the redistricting case.
She is also asking the court to halt all written briefing deadlines in the student loan case and two environmental cases, which would suspend the processing of those cases indefinitely. Before the court hears oral argument in a case, it typically asks the litigants to file briefs outlining the legal arguments they intend to make.
In legal parlance, Harris filed motions to hold the briefing schedule in those three cases in abeyance. In other words, she asked the court to suspend briefings until the new administration can decide how to proceed.
Trump has nominated attorney John Sauer as solicitor general. Sauer, who was Missouri’s solicitor general from 2017, represented Trump at the Supreme Court in his successful bid for immunity after being prosecuted for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Student Debt Case
Harris filed an abeyance motion with the Supreme Court in U.S. Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas. The court granted the petition on Jan. 10. The oral argument has not been scheduled.
An association of colleges challenged the Biden-era Department of Education’s rule establishing the procedures that student borrowers can follow to show that they were defrauded by the schools they attended and thereby qualify for student loan forgiveness. Some borrowers claim that schools committed fraud by using unethical recruitment tactics or by advertising exaggerated post-graduation job placement figures.
A lower court issued a ruling halting the department-directed expansion of defenses that student loan borrowers can use to contest repayment.
“After the change in Administration, the Acting Secretary of Education has determined that the Department should reassess the basis for and soundness of the Department’s borrower-defense regulations,” Harris wrote in the motion.
California Emissions Dispute
Harris filed an abeyance motion with the high court in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13, 2024, to decide whether it would revive a lawsuit filed by energy companies over California’s tough vehicle emissions standards. The court has not yet scheduled oral argument in the case.
A lower court ruled that California had the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. That court held that the energy companies bringing the legal action could not demonstrate that they had legal standing to sue, meaning they couldn’t show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in the lawsuit.
Energy companies told the Supreme Court in their petition that they will suffer economic harm if California, whose state economy is large, is allowed to continue imposing vehicle emissions standards that are more stringent than those mandated by the federal government.
California’s policy stances are influential, and several states have already adopted its regulatory framework for automobiles. California says its policies are needed to fight climate change by driving down demand for liquid fuel.
“After the change in Administration, EPA’s Acting Administrator has determined that the agency should reassess the basis for and soundness of the 2022 reinstatement decision,” Harris wrote, referring to a regulatory action taken by the EPA.
“Such a reassessment could obviate the need for this Court to determine whether petitioners had Article III standing to challenge that decision.”
Article III of the U.S. Constitution governs federal courts and has been interpreted as stating those courts may only hear cases involving actual controversies in which at least one litigant has standing to sue.
Other Environmental Cases
The DOJ also asked the Supreme Court to pause the processing of two other cases that dispute EPA actions.
Both are about the federal Clean Air Act, which provides that challenges to “nationally applicable regulations” may “be filed only” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the first case, Oklahoma v. EPA, which has been consolidated with Pacificorp v. EPA, Oklahoma and other states argue that state disputes over EPA policies should be heard in regional circuit courts, rather than in the nation’s capital.
The Supreme Court granted the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. No oral argument has yet been scheduled.
At issue is the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule that cracks down on states whose industries are said to be contributing to smog.
The Clean Air Act requires each state to adopt an implementation plan to comply with national standards, which the EPA then reviews, but in 2023, the agency drafted its own rule after rejecting 23 states’ plans for meeting national ozone standards.
In February 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit determined that challenges to EPA disapproval of the state plans could be filed only in the D.C. Circuit.
The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on June 27, 2024, to temporarily put the EPA’s rule on hold. The court held that the emissions-reduction standards established by the EPA’s plan would probably cause irreversible harm to several of the affected states unless the plan were stayed until it could be reviewed by the lower courts.
The states said the regulation was illegal, costly, and could lead to blackouts, while the EPA said the rule was urgently needed to fight air pollution. They said the EPA’s plan undermines the principles of the Clean Air Act.
In the second case, EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, oil refineries argue they should be exempted from a federal mandate that the gasoline they produce should be made with a percentage of ethanol.
The Supreme Court approved the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. Oral argument has not been scheduled by the court.
The EPA argued the case should be heard by the D.C. Circuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in November 2023 that it—and not the D.C. Circuit—was the proper forum for that appeal.
Harris used identical language in part of the Oklahoma v. EPA abeyance motion and the EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining abeyance motion.
“After the change in Administration, EPA’s Acting Administrator has determined that the agency should reassess the basis for and soundness of the underlying disapproval action,” Harris wrote. “Such a reassessment could obviate the need for this Court to determine the proper venue for challenges to that action.”
Redistricting Case
In the redistricting case, the Supreme Court decided on Nov. 4, 2024, the day before the presidential election, to take up the racial gerrymandering dispute known as Louisiana v. Callais, which was consolidated with the related case of Robinson v. Callais.
Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor a particular party or constituency.
A federal district judge in 2022 had ordered the Republican-controlled Louisiana State Legislature to revise its electoral map, which provided for one black-majority congressional district, because it discriminated against black voters, who constitute almost one-third of the state’s population.
The Legislature complied, approving a new map that featured two black-majority districts. Map opponents told the Supreme Court in briefs that the new redistricting plan discriminated against non-black voters.
A panel of three federal district judges then sided with the non-black voters, determining in April 2024 that the map could not be used in upcoming elections. The Supreme Court intervened and stayed that order, allowing the map to be used.
Harris told the justices in a Jan. 24 letter that the Biden-era DOJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 23, 2024, arguing that there was “a strong basis in evidence” for the single federal district judge to believe a new map had to be drawn to bring the state into compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act. On Jan. 16, while Biden was still president, the DOJ also asked to participate in the oral argument of the case.
But with “the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the government’s position in these cases,” and the Biden-era brief “no longer represents the position of the United States.”
The DOJ is also “withdrawing its pending motion to participate in the oral argument,” Harris wrote.
Oral argument in the case has not yet been scheduled.
It is unclear when the Supreme Court will respond to the change in position in the redistricting case and to the abeyance motions.
Loading…
