President Trump’s Justice Department could change the department’s position on critical Supreme Court cases, potentially altering the trajectory of high-profile appeals before the justices.
While it is customary for new administration’s to shift such positions in a handful of cases when a new party takes over the White House, Trump’s administration has begun moving to halt several pending cases that have not yet been fully briefed.
The Justice Department could also shakeup other disputes further along.
Here are the key cases to watch.
Ghost guns
In one of its first arguments of the term, the Supreme Court weighed whether the Biden administration complied with federal firearms law in its crackdown on “ghost guns,” generally untraceable firearms sold as do-it-yourself-kits.
The justices at the argument appeared inclined to uphold the regulation over the legal objections of the gun industry.
Though the new Trump administration could reverse positions, it could also attempt to end the case by merely having the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rescind Biden’s rule.
The rule classifies ghost guns like any other firearm, making them subject to background checks, licensing and other federal requirements.
Biden’s crackdown came in response to the devices exploding in popularity, including thousands that were recovered by law enforcement in recent years. Ghost guns entered the public limelight again after suspect Luigi Mangione allegedly used such a device to shoot and kill UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City. Mangione pleaded not guilty.
Though Trump has been significantly friendlier to the gun industry, during his first term, he similarly attempted to use his executive authority to implement new regulations banning bump stocks. The Supreme Court struck down the regulation as unlawful last year.
Gender-affirming care
The Supreme Court this term is hearing the Justice Department’s challenge to Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors.
The Biden administration insisted the law and others like it passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures amount to unconstitutional sex discrimination.
But now, the Trump administration could abandon that position and instead back Tennessee.
When the court agreed before the election to hear the dispute, it only took up the Biden administration’s challenge and did not do so for a group of parents of transgender students who similarly sued.
It remains unclear how the court will proceed, given that the case has already been fully briefed and argued.
The new administration could attempt to toss the case upon reversing positions. The Justice Department could also tell the justices to still move ahead to a decision, given that the parents still participated at oral arguments and continue to represent the Biden administration’s position.
Biden student debt rule
On Friday, Trump’s Justice Department asked to indefinitely pause proceedings in the government’s appeal of a decision blocking a Biden administration rule making it easier for students to receive debt forgiveness if they were defrauded by their college.
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris indicated in DOJ’s motion that Trump’s acting Secretary of Education determined a reassessment of the agency’s position is warranted.
Ultimately, the new administration may ask the court to deem the case moot if they move ahead with rescinding Biden’s action.
The motion indicated that the challengers of Biden’s rule, an association of schools in Texas that say the administration was not authorized to expand the program, do not oppose the hold. The case has not yet been scheduled for argument.
“Given the Acting Secretary of Education’s determination, it would be appropriate for the Court to hold further proceedings in this case in abeyance to allow for the Department to reassess the basis for and soundness of the borrower-defense regulations,” Harris wrote.
Environmental challenge venue
The Trump administration on Friday also asked the Justice Department to halt two environmental cases, both which consider the venue plaintiffs can sue in when challenging certain Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions.
One case stems from a dispute over whether Oklahoma and Utah must create better plans to fight smog, while the other concerns whether some oil refineries can skirt requirements that their gasoline contains a percentage of ethanol.
Harris wrote in DOJ’s motion that Trump’s acting EPA administrator determined that the agency should reassess those requirements – and that such a reassessment could “obviate the need” for the justices to weigh in.
The challengers in both cases opposed any suspension of proceedings, contending that the venue issue must be resolved no matter which position the EPA under Trump ultimately decides it should take.
Seth Waxman, a Clinton-era solicitor general representing one of the oil refineries, noted that the justices agreed to hear the case with the express knowledge that the EPA was “already bound to” examine the decision-making of the Biden administration.
“The Court’s judgment remains sound,” he said.
California clean car standards
Trump’s Justice Department also already urged the high court to pump the brakes on a bid by the oil and biofuel industry to revive its challenge to California’s clean cars program, which mandates stricter-than-federal vehicle emissions standards and was reinstated by Biden’s EPA.
Harris wrote in a motion to hold all proceedings in the case that the EPA must now reassess the “basis for and soundness of” the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate the program in 2022.
The industry has not yet filed its response to the request, though Harris indicated that it opposes DOJ’s request.
