President-elect Donald Trump's recent victory signals a potential shake-up in ongoing legal cases across the U.S. court system.
Several ongoing legal disputes including major Biden administration policies could see significant shifts under the new leadership, Washington Examiner reported.
Jonathan Entin, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, explains the intricacies involved in adjusting the legal strategies mid-course, especially in cases well-progressed through the judicial system.
Under Trump’s upcoming term, the Supreme Court might alter its stance on various policies, including those related to environmental regulations, immigration, and gun control.
The anticipated approach by the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) includes reconsidering participation in cases like Skrmetti v. United States, which contests Tennessee's restrictions on transgender hormone procedures for minors. Changes may lean towards more conservative policies aligning with Trump's historical views.
One of the options for the Trump administration could be initiating a rulemaking process to repeal or amend existing regulations rather than proceeding through the courts. Jonathan Entin commented on this strategy. He pointed out that initiating or reopening rulemaking processes could lead to a judicial economy by pausing current lawsuits, providing federal agencies the chance to redefine their stances.
On matters of national controversy such as Texas border enforcement and gun control regulations in the Garland v. Vanderstok case, the DOJ under Trump could shift its policy stances drastically, potentially dismissing opposing lawsuits and thereby supporting state-level measures.
The future of Supreme Court decisions under the Trump administration could heavily depend on the DOJ’s willingness to continue defending cases passed down from Biden's presidency. Legislative outcomes may powerfully dictate future regulatory actions and shape how laws such as the Chevron doctrine are interpreted, affecting how administrative decisions are made.
Regarding the ongoing Texas border security disputes, Entin also argued the relative ease with which the new DOJ might change its course: “They are Justice Department cases, to begin with, and I think they can simply say, ‘We no longer object to what Texas is doing. So we want to dismiss the case.’ I think they can do that.”
Any modifications in DOJ attitudes will likely mirror the ideological shifts in leadership, potentially undoing much of the regulatory groundwork the Biden administration laid. Notable cases that could face reevaluation include healthcare access for DACA participants under the Affordable Care Act in states like North Dakota and regulations concerning the “waters of the U.S.”
These potential changes underscore the dynamic interplay between administrative shifts and judicial proceedings, setting the stage for possible pivots in U.S. policy direction and legal interpretations.
In conclusion, the Trump administration's control over the DOJ could lead to broad reversals in court cases and regulatory policies, emphasizing a shift toward more conservative federal regulatory strategies. This realignment may significantly impact how key issues are contested in the higher courts, possibly altering the judicial landscape in ways that will resonate beyond Trump’s term.
