Scotus News
By Amy Howe
On February 6th 2025
At. 17.17
The three cases the judges refused to wait are likely to be argued in March. (Amy Lutz via Shutterstock)
On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court agreed to put the orientation in a challenge to a Biden-Era rule to streamline the process of reviewing requests for forgiveness of student loans from borrowers whose schools scammed them or were closed. In a brief unsigned order, the judges accommodate a request from acting lawyer Sarah Harris intended to give the Department of Education Time to see another look at the rules. But the judges refused to put the briefing in three other cases on wait, presumably because – as opposed to the Department of Education Case – challengers in both cases who had sought the Supreme Court’s review, opposed the government’s request.
Harris came to the Supreme Court on January 24 and asked the judges temporarily to stop the briefing in four cases. She stated 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 consider the rules, agency provisions or actions at the center of each dispute.
The challenger in Department of Education v. Career College and Schools in TexasA group of for-profit colleges, the consent of the Trump administration’s request to put the briefing plan in the case on wait, and the Justices who were awarded this request on Thursday.
However, other challengers did not accept similar requests. In a case, for example, Jeffrey Wall-a lawyer for fuel producers trying to challenge EPA’s grants to California of an exception that allows the state to set standards to limit greenhouse gas emissions and demand all passenger cars sold in the state to the state to be zero-emission vehicles in 2035-known that his clients “welcome” EPA’s decision to rethink its exception. But he continued, “the government’s long reconsideration process – which, along with subsequent litigation, is likely to take years – has nothing to do with” the question to court in this case: whether fuel producers have a legal right to challenge action at all.
The judges on Thursday refused Harris’ request for the remaining three cases. As is often the case, they did not explain their reasoning.
Briefing will now advance in the three cases that are likely to be argued under the court’s argument in March.
This article was originally published on Howe on the field.
