Supreme Court Grants DOJ Request to Pause Student Borrower Case

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Aug. 14, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Feb. 6 to a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to halt a pending student loan case but declined to pause processing three environmental regulation cases.

The new rulings came after the DOJ asked the court on Jan. 24 to put the Biden-era cases on hold because the department changed or is considering changing its position on the cases following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20.

The Supreme Court did not explain its decisions. No justices dissented.

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 DOJ similarly changed its position on several court cases that were pending at the time.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who is currently the Trump administration’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court, said in the Jan. 24 filings that the DOJ needs time to look at the cases because a new president is in charge.

Harris had asked the court to halt all written briefing deadlines in the cases, which would suspend the processing of those cases indefinitely. Before the court hears oral arguments in a case, it typically asks the litigants to file briefs outlining the arguments they intend to make.

In legal parlance, Harris filed motions to hold the briefing schedule in the cases in abeyance. In other words, she asked the court to suspend briefings until the new president’s administration can decide how to proceed.

Trump has nominated attorney John Sauer as solicitor general. Sauer, who was Missouri’s solicitor general from 2017 to 2023, represented Trump at the Supreme Court in his successful bid for immunity after being prosecuted for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Student Loan Case

On Feb. 6, the Supreme Court agreed to put Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas on hold.

The court granted the petition on Jan. 10. Oral arguments have not been scheduled.

The court could decide at some point to move forward and resume the processing of the case. The court could also change its mind and decide to withdraw approval of the petition.

The Trump administration could also render the case moot or irrelevant by changing or repealing the Biden-era Department of Education’s rule that is being challenged. The rule established 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 abeyance motion.

Environmental Cases

On Feb. 6, the Supreme Court denied the DOJ motions in three cases that involve the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Two of the cases concern 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 are arguing that state disputes over EPA policies should be heard in regional circuit courts rather than in the circuit court in the nation’s capital. The Supreme Court granted the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. No oral arguments have yet been scheduled.

At issue is the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule, which targets 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 agency’s plan would probably cause irreversible harm to several of the affected states unless the plan was stayed until it could be reviewed by the lower courts.

The states said the regulation was illegal, costly, could lead to blackouts, and undermined the principles of the Clean Air Act, while the EPA said the rule was urgently needed to fight air pollution.

The Supreme Court said Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the abeyance motion ruling in Oklahoma v. EPA. It did not explain why.

In the second case, EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, oil refineries are arguing that they should be exempted from a federal mandate that the gasoline they produce must contain a specified percentage of ethanol.

The Supreme Court approved the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. Oral arguments have not been scheduled.

The EPA argued that 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 venue for that appeal.

Harris used identical language in parts 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.”

California Emissions Case

In a third environmental case, Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. 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 arguments 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 that 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, with its large economy, 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 in the abeyance motion, 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 providing that those courts may only hear cases involving actual controversies in which at least one litigant has standing to sue.