Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Directs Repeal of Regulations That Are Unlawful Under 10 Recent Supreme Court Decisions

4/9/2025
Fact Sheets

View Original

Action Summary

  • Memorandum Overview: President Trump signed a memorandum directing agencies to rescind regulations deemed unlawful under 10 recent Supreme Court decisions, as part of Executive Order 14219 and the “Department Of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative.
  • Review Focus: Agencies are instructed to prioritize the review of regulations in light of 10 watershed Supreme Court cases.
  • Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: Repeal regulations based on an improper reliance on the Chevron doctrine; enforce the “single, best meaning” standard for statutes.
  • West Virginia v. EPA: Eliminate rules that violate the Major Questions Doctrine by asserting unapproved large-scale authority.
  • SEC v. Jarkesy: Repeal any regulation that permits adjudication of common-law claims via in-house agency courts, ensuring cases are tried in Article III Courts with a jury.
  • Michigan v. EPA: Revoke regulations lacking proper cost/benefit analysis, where imposed costs are unjustified by public benefits.
  • Sackett v. EPA: Remove any regulation inconsistent with a properly bounded interpretation of “waters of the United States.”
  • Ohio v. EPA: Cancel regulations that do not account for shifting foundational assumptions or sufficiently justify imposed costs.
  • Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid: Repeal regulations that violate the Takings Clause by improperly affecting property rights and union access.
  • Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard: Eliminate any regulation that enforces racially discriminatory rules or preferences, in alignment with the Equal Protection Clause.
  • Carson v. Makin and Roman Cath. Diocese v. Cuomo: Ensure equal treatment of religious and secular institutions in funding, benefits, and regulatory measures.
  • Implementation Procedures: Agencies are instructed to swiftly revoke these unlawful regulations using the APA “good cause” exception to avoid unnecessary burdens.

Risks & Considerations

  • The directive to repeal regulations based on recent Supreme Court decisions could lead to significant changes in regulatory frameworks that impact higher education institutions, including Vanderbilt University. This may create uncertainty in compliance requirements and operational procedures.
  • The overturning of the Chevron doctrine and the emphasis on the “single, best meaning” of statutes could lead to stricter interpretations of laws affecting university operations, potentially increasing legal scrutiny and compliance costs.
  • The repeal of regulations under the Major Questions Doctrine may affect federal funding and research grants, as agencies may need to reassess their authority to allocate resources, impacting programs reliant on such funding.
  • Changes in regulations related to the Equal Protection Clause and affirmative action could impact Vanderbilt’s admissions policies and diversity initiatives, necessitating a review and potential overhaul of current practices.
  • The emphasis on equal treatment of religious institutions could affect funding and partnerships with religiously affiliated organizations, requiring careful navigation to maintain compliance and equity.

Impacted Programs

  • Vanderbilt’s Office of General Counsel will need to closely monitor and interpret changes in regulations to ensure the university remains compliant with new legal standards.
  • Admissions and Financial Aid Offices may need to adjust policies and practices in response to changes in affirmative action regulations, impacting recruitment and scholarship distribution strategies.
  • Research and Grant Administration could face challenges in securing federal funding if regulatory changes affect the scope and authority of funding agencies.
  • The Office of Religious Life may need to reassess partnerships and programs involving religious institutions to ensure compliance with new regulations regarding equal treatment.

Financial Impact

  • Potential changes in federal funding allocations due to regulatory shifts could impact Vanderbilt’s budget and financial planning, particularly in research and development areas.
  • Compliance with new legal interpretations may require additional resources for legal counsel and administrative adjustments, potentially increasing operational costs.
  • Adjustments in admissions policies could affect the demographic composition of the student body, influencing tuition revenue and financial aid distribution.
  • Opportunities for collaboration with federal agencies may be affected by changes in regulatory authority, impacting potential funding and partnership opportunities.

Relevance Score: 5 (The memorandum presents critical risks involving legal and regulatory issues that could significantly impact university operations and policies.)

Key Actions

  • Office of Federal Relations should closely monitor the implementation of Executive Order 14219 and the subsequent repeal of regulations that may impact Vanderbilt’s operations, particularly those related to research funding and compliance with federal regulations. This will be crucial in understanding how these changes might affect the university’s strategic initiatives and funding opportunities.
  • Vanderbilt’s Legal Affairs Office should conduct a thorough review of current university policies and practices to ensure compliance with the new legal standards set by the recent Supreme Court decisions. This includes evaluating any potential impacts on affirmative action policies, environmental regulations, and other areas where federal regulations may have been repealed or altered.
  • Research Administration should assess the potential impact of the repeal of regulations on research funding and compliance requirements. By identifying areas where regulatory changes may affect grant applications and funding opportunities, the university can adapt its research strategies to align with the new legal landscape.
  • Vanderbilt’s Diversity and Inclusion Office should evaluate the implications of the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College decision on the university’s admissions policies. This includes ensuring that admissions practices are in compliance with the Equal Protection Clause and do not impose racially discriminatory rules or preferences.
  • Environmental and Sustainability Programs should review the impact of changes to environmental regulations, particularly those related to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, to ensure that the university’s sustainability initiatives remain compliant and effective.

Opportunities

  • The executive order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Policy Research Institutes to engage in policy analysis and advocacy regarding the implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions. By providing evidence-based recommendations, these institutes can influence how regulations are shaped and implemented in the future.
  • Vanderbilt can capitalize on the increased focus on lawful governance by developing new programs and partnerships that align with the principles of the recent Supreme Court decisions. This could include joint research initiatives, policy development, and collaborative projects with other institutions and government agencies.
  • The emphasis on equal treatment of religious institutions offers an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Divinity School to engage in dialogue and collaboration with religious organizations. By fostering partnerships and understanding, the university can enhance its role in promoting religious freedom and equality.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order presents the potential for major process changes required for Vanderbilt’s programs due to regulatory impacts.)

Average Relevance Score: 3.2

Timeline for Implementation

N/A – The memorandum instructs agencies to act “expeditiously” under the APA’s “good cause” exception without specifying any fixed implementation deadline.

Relevance Score: 1

Impacted Government Organizations

  • All Federal Executive Agencies: Every executive branch agency is directed to review and repeal regulations that conflict with the legal interpretations established in 10 recent landmark Supreme Court cases.
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Multiple cases (Michigan v. EPA, Sackett v. EPA, Ohio v. EPA) specifically compel the EPA to reassess and repeal environmental regulations that fail to justify their costs or rely on outdated authority frameworks.
  • Department Of Government Efficiency (Deregulatory Initiative): As referenced through EO 14219, this initiative is tasked with overseeing the governmentwide effort to eliminate unlawful regulations, thereby impacting agencies’ procedural review processes.

Relevance Score: 2 (A moderate number of agencies are directly impacted by this directive.)

Responsible Officials

  • Agency Heads and Department Leaders – Charged with reviewing and repealing regulations that conflict with the ten specified Supreme Court decisions.

Relevance Score: 4 (This directive affects high-level agency officials responsible for implementing regulatory changes.)

You might also like
Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Administrator of the United States for International Development
Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information
White House Releases New Policies on Federal Agency AI Use and Procurement
Fact Sheet: The United States and Indonesia Reach Historic Trade Deal
Joint Statement on U.S.-China Economic and Trade Meeting in Stockholm
Yes, “There’s Something Wrong with Walz” — and it Cost Taxpayers $1 Billion