This week’s federal policy round-up highlights the impacts of shifting federal approaches to health care access, immigration enforcement, consumer protections, and election administration. Actions affecting family planning funding, deportation appeals, humanitarian immigration protections, student loan repayment programs, antitrust enforcement, election investigations, potential federal involvement in polling places, and free speech reflect evolving uses of federal authority across multiple policy areas.
Affordable Care Act Subsidies Still Await Senate Action: The Senate has not taken up legislation to restore enhanced ACA premium tax credits, even though the House passed a bill to do so. Families are now entering a third month of higher health insurance premiums while also facing rising costs for essentials like housing, groceries, and energy. Many households are stretching already tight budgets to keep their coverage, and some have already been forced to drop it. With little recent movement in the Senate, it is especially important that lawmakers hear directly from their constituents about how these higher costs are affecting families. Contact your Senators and urge them to restore ACA tax credits. Click HERE to take action.
Federal Delay in Family Planning Funding Could Disrupt Care for Low-Income Patients
Access to contraception and other reproductive health services from health providers participating in the federal Title X family planning program could be disrupted because the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not released guidance for the next funding cycle. The Office of Population Affairs typically issues this guidance by late December so that providers can apply for grants that begin April 1; however, it has not been released yet. Current Title X funding expires March 31, raising the risk of a lapse for providers that offer contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing, cancer screenings, and other preventive services for low-income patients.
More than three dozen Democratic senators sent a letter this week urging HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to release the guidance immediately. Health care providers warn that even if guidance were issued now, the application process normally takes months, leaving little time to prevent disruptions in care for more than 2 million patients who rely on Title X.
Court Blocks Rule That Could Accelerate Deportations by Limiting Appeals
A federal trial court blocked the administration from implementing a rule that would sharply limit review of immigration appeals, finding the policy violated federal notice-and-comment requirements because it was issued without public input just before it was set to take effect. The proposed rule would automatically dismiss appeals of immigration judge decisions unless there is a majority vote from the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider the case within ten days of the decision.
For now, the decision preserves the current appeals process, allowing migrants more time to challenge deportation orders. If implemented, the rule would likely result in many appeals being dismissed without meaningful review, accelerating deportations. The ruling comes amid broader efforts by the administration to reshape the immigration court system, including reducing the number of permanent members of the appeals board from 28 to 15.
Court Blocks End of Haiti TPS as Administration Seeks Limits on Judicial Oversight
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld a lower court ruling blocking the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 350,000 Haitians living in the United States. The lower court found that hostility toward nonwhite immigrants likely influenced the decision. The ruling preserves TPS and work authorization for Haitian nationals while litigation continues, but the Justice Department is already seeking emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The administration is asking the Court to limit the ability of judges to block TPS terminations affecting migrants from multiple countries, including Haiti and Syria. In related cases, the Court has allowed some terminations to take effect while lawsuits are still pending. Courts typically keep protections in place until challenges are resolved. By allowing terminations during ongoing litigation, individuals could end up being deported after losing legal status and work authorization, even if the policy changes are later found unlawful.
Federal Appeals Court Orders End to SAVE Student Loan Repayment Plan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered the termination of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) student loan repayment plan. The court reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states challenging the program. Instead, the appeals court directed the lower court to enforce a settlement supported by the Trump administration and the plaintiff states that ends the plan. Introduced in 2023, SAVE was designed to lower monthly payments through income-driven repayment and was described by the previous administration as the most affordable repayment option.
The ruling requires millions of borrowers enrolled in SAVE to transition to other repayment plans, which could result in higher monthly payments and the loss of some benefits including faster loan forgiveness for certain borrowers. The Department of Education says it will issue guidance on next steps for borrowers. The decision adds to ongoing uncertainty for households navigating repayment as court rulings and new federal legislation reshape the federal student loan system.
States Reject DOJ Deal in Ticketmaster Antitrust Case Over Consumer Harms
The Justice Department reached a tentative settlement in its antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. Filed in 2024, the case alleged that Live Nation and Ticketmaster used exclusive venue contracts and related practices to dominate the live entertainment market, raise ticket fees, and limit competition. The case sought sweeping remedies that could have broken up or significantly restructured their control over ticketing and concert venues.
The settlement instead abandons many of those structural remedies in favor of narrower ticketing changes. More than two dozen states that joined the bipartisan lawsuit refused to support the deal and will continue litigating, arguing it leaves the underlying monopoly intact and fails to meaningfully protect fans, artists, or competing ticket platforms. The judge also criticized the parties after learning the agreement had already been finalized during the trial without being disclosed to the court or the state co-plaintiffs. The result was an unusual situation in which the Federal Government has stepped back while states continue pursuing the case, raising broader concerns about the strength of federal enforcement against dominant corporations in markets that directly affect consumer prices.
Federal Subpoena Expands Efforts to Access 2020 Election Materials
The FBI has obtained records from the Arizona Senate’s 2021 review of the 2020 presidential election after the records were subpoenaed by a federal grand jury. The 2021 review examined nearly 2.1 million ballots in Maricopa County and reaffirmed that Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020, finding no substantial differences from the certified results. Because the state Senate conducted the review, it retained election materials that would normally have been discarded, including ballot images, absentee envelope records, vote tallies, and server software.
The subpoena follows other recent federal efforts to obtain 2020 election materials, including an FBI search of a warehouse storing ballots from Fulton County, Georgia. Reopening inquiries into settled election results risks politicizing election administration and raises concerns about federal involvement in state-run election systems, particularly given past attempts by key figures in the current administration, including the president, to overturn the 2020 election outcome.
Lawsuit Seeks Records on Possible Federal Deployment to Polling Places
The Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit seeking to force the U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Defense to respond to eleven Freedom of Information Act requests about whether federal agents or military personnel could be deployed at polling places or election offices. The suit says the agencies failed to provide meaningful responses to requests filed in October. Federal law generally bars armed federal agents or troops from polling places. The lawsuit follows statements by administration officials discussing potential election deployments, including comments by the president earlier this year saying he regretted not sending troops during the 2020 election. The case seeks records clarifying whether any planning or discussions have occurred.
Court Condemns “Abhorrent” Targeting of Pro-Palestinian Scholar
A federal district court this week denied the administration’s request to pause a recent order addressing the detention and attempted deportation of non-citizen students and scholars linked to pro-Palestinian campus protests. The request followed the court’s earlier ruling that federal officials violated the First Amendment by targeting individuals for immigration enforcement based on protected speech. In the March 11 order, the judge refused to suspend sanctions and other remedies designed to prevent further retaliatory immigration actions against members of the academic associations that filed the lawsuit. The court called the government’s conduct “abhorrent,” condemned the targeting of protected expression, and warned that such actions “must never happen again.”