Home · Politics · Oct 18 archive

Trump administration asks justices to determine courts’ ability to vacate federal agency actions

· Confirmed

Politics Desk

In Short: John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, urged the court to set limits on the authority of federal courts, arguing that nothing in the federal law governing administrative agencies suggests courts have the power to vacate an agency’s action entirely.

Donald Trump (Wikidata P18)
Photo: Daniel Torok / Wikimedia Commons (Public domain)

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether and when a federal court can throw out an agency’s action or rule in its entirety, focusing on a case involving the No Surprises Act, a 2022 law aimed at protecting patients from surprise healthcare bills.

Sauer noted that such actions have harmful consequences for the courts themselves, as they often force courts to resolve significant legal questions on an expedited basis.

YouTube — Glenn Kirschner YouTube

The case began as challenges to rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury to implement parts of the No Surprises Act.

A federal district court in Texas ruled for the challengers, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the government’s argument that vacating the rules would create practical problems.

The appeals court reasoned that such injunctions were inconsistent with the equitable tradition, under which courts can grant complete relief to parties before the court but cannot reach beyond them.

The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for the No Surprises Act and the broader authority of federal courts to vacate agency actions.

In a separate development, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Trump administration policy denying bond hearings for immigrants as the government carries out a sweeping crackdown on immigration.

The justices will consider whether immigrants who have been living in the U.S. have a right to a hearing to determine if they should remain detained while challenging their possible deportation.

Nine federal appeals courts have rejected the Trump administration's interpretation of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

ACLU attorneys argued that millions of noncitizens could be affected by the government’s new interpretation.

The Supreme Court’s review of both cases could have far-reaching consequences for immigration and healthcare policy in the United States.

What this adds

The Trump administration's request to the Supreme Court on the No Surprises Act case adds to ongoing debates about the limits of federal court authority over agency actions.

The Supreme Court's decision on the bond hearings policy could affect the rights of immigrants detained while challenging their deportation.

Background

Bonta also pointed out that the Trump administration was violating a federal law that prohibits states from changing voter rolls within 90 days of an election.

The Trump administration also announced the removal of subsidies for about 189,000 ACA enrollees with duplicate Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP coverage, citing a failure to look for concurrent enrollments or continued coverage for dead people.

What's confirmed

What's still developing

Sources