On November 15, 2024, it was reported that Republican Donald Trump is set to return to the position of President of the United States. This is expected to lead to a shift in the previous legal positions of the Department of Justice in major cases pending before the Supreme Court, including the contentious issue of Tennessee’s ban on providing “gender-affirming medical care” to transgender minors.
Legal experts have stated that under a new administration led by Trump, there could be significant changes in legal stances in cases concerning untraceable firearms (known as “ghost guns”), nuclear waste storage, flavored e-cigarette products, and securities fraud, among other legal issues.
Trump nominated Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz as the U.S. Attorney General, but the selection for the Solicitor General, responsible for representing the government in Supreme Court cases, has yet to be announced.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, expressed his expectation that Trump’s Solicitor General would alter the Department of Justice’s previous positions in significant cases before the Supreme Court.
Chemerinsky added that the transition of power from one party’s administration to another is not uncommon and is anticipated to align more closely with the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, where three of the six conservative justices were appointed by Trump.
Steve Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, expressed his belief that the changes under the Trump administration may not pose significant challenges to the courts as the majority aligns with the government’s position, particularly with a Solicitor General indicating their stance.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an appeal on December 4 by the Biden administration regarding a lower court ruling that supported a Tennessee state law prohibiting medical intervention for minors with gender dysphoria.
Gender dysphoria refers to a clinical condition where a person experiences significant distress due to a misalignment between their gender identity and the sex assigned at birth.
Michele Goodwin, a law professor at Georgetown University, noted that the Trump administration is unlikely to advocate for the protection and interests of transgender individuals, given Trump’s prior statements and actions during his presidency.
A group of transgender youth and their parents had filed a lawsuit challenging the Tennessee legislation before action was taken by the Biden administration. While the Supreme Court chose to only hear the government’s appeal, the involvement of the plaintiffs’ attorneys was allowed. The Trump administration’s change in position from the Biden administration remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will respond.
Additionally, Trump’s Solicitor General could potentially overturn the Biden administration’s stances in two other cases concerning the authorization of nuclear waste storage facilities by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the FDA’s rejection of various flavored e-cigarette product applications.
The Biden administration supported shareholders in separate private securities fraud lawsuits involving chip manufacturer Nvidia and Meta’s Facebook social media platform, which could see a drastic reversal under the Trump administration.
Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School, suggested that the Trump administration’s regulatory enforcement might be weaker compared to a typical Democratic administration, potentially leading to changes in legal positions in cases where conflicts arise with regulated industries.
Reversals in policies and positions at the Supreme Court when a Republican president succeeds a Democratic president are not uncommon, and vice versa, according to Deborah Widiss, a law professor at Indiana University.
Widiss emphasized the nature of democracy in allowing differences in political viewpoints to be expressed through legal processes, and highlighted the controversies and arguments on both sides in these legal issues.
The Trump administration’s actions during his first term in areas such as unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and election law were noted to have diverged from the legal positions presented by the preceding Democratic president, Barack Obama, at the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration also rolled back a federal directive that required public schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity. This led the Supreme Court to cancel the planned hearing on a case of a transgender public school student in Virginia.
Following Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, his administration reversed some of the previous administration’s actions, particularly on immigration. This led to the Supreme Court canceling scheduled arguments in 2021 regarding Trump’s restrictive asylum policy and the diversion of military funds for the border wall project.
At the behest of the Biden administration, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit in 2021 challenging another immigration measure implemented by the Trump administration that restricted legal permanent residency for those deemed likely to need government welfare benefits. Biden’s administration issued new regulations in 2022 as a result.
(Adapted from Reuters news report)