SCOTUS NEWS
Justices agree to pause briefing on Biden-era loan forgiveness rule
on Feb 6, 2025 at 5:17 pm
The Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon agreed to pause the briefing in a challenge to a Biden-era rule intended to streamline the process for reviewing requests for student loan forgiveness from borrowers whose schools defrauded them or were shut down. In a brief unsigned order, the justices granted a request from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris intended to give the Department of Education time to take another look at the regulations. But the justices declined to put the briefing in three other cases on hold, presumably because – unlike in the Department of Education case – the challengers in each case, who had sought Supreme Court review, opposed the government’s request.
Harris came to the Supreme Court on Jan. 24, asking the justices to temporarily halt the briefing in four cases. She indicated that, with the change in administrations from former President Joe Biden to President Donald Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency (in three cases) and the Department of Education intended to reconsider the regulations, agency determinations, or actions at the center of each dispute.
The challenger in Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, a group of for-profit colleges, consented to the Trump administration’s request to put the briefing schedule in the case on hold, and the justices granted that request on Thursday.
However, other challengers did not consent to similar requests. In one case, for example, Jeffrey Wall – an attorney for fuel producers seeking to challenge the EPA’s grant to California of a waiver that allows the state to set standards to limit greenhouse-gas emissions and require all passenger vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035 – acknowledged that his clients “welcome” the EPA’s decision to reconsider its waiver. But, he continued, “the government’s lengthy reconsideration process — which, together with subsequent litigation, will likely take years — has nothing to do with” the question before the court in this case: whether the fuel producers have a legal right to challenge the action at all.
The justices on Thursday denied Harris’s request with respect to the remaining three cases. As is often the case, they did not explain their reasoning.
Briefing will now move forward in the three cases, which are likely to be argued during the court’s March argument session.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
