PSJD News Digest – July 6, 2026

July 6, 2026 at 12:45 pm · Filed under Public Interest Law News Bulletin

Sam Halpert, NALP Director of Public Service Initiatives

Photo: Harris and Ewing Collection, Library of Congress

Hi Interested Public,

In Editor’s Choices, some major new developments related to the Department of Education’s new rule which would disqualify borrowers from making PSLF-qualifying loan payments if their employer organization has a “substantial illegal purpose”. The Supreme Court’s end-of-term ruling in Slaughter v. Cook–a case directly examining the President’s power to remove principal officers at agencies Congress structured with a degree of independence–seems likely to have implications that reach all federal employees. The Trump Administration is hoping to reassign responsibility for representing unaccompanied minor children in immigration proceedings away from civil society organizations to the Texas Attorney General’s office. Meanwhile, that same Attorney General’s office has convinced the Texas Supreme Court to suspend the operation of the state’s immigration defense fund pending the AG’s lawsuit challenging the fund’s overall legality. As always, these stories and more are in the links below. Solidarity,

Sam

Editor’s Choice(s)

Federal Restructuring & Funding

  • President can fire independent agency heads without cause, Supreme Court rules (Government Executive; 29 Jun 2026)

    • Slaughter’s Silence (Lawfare; 30 Jun 2026)

      “Key to interpreting Slaughter is the terminology that has governed personnel decisions for the last half century. The Supreme Court has historically placed executive-branch officials in three categories…Yet, Roberts’s majority opinion does not provide a clean statement of its holding or any language suggesting that its reasoning does not reach inferior officers or employees…Instead, he consistently refers to Congress’s lack of authority to restrict the removal of the president’s “subordinates.” …The indeterminacy in Roberts’s opinion leaves space for arguments that Slaughter expanded the removal power over inferior officers and employees. Textually, the phrase “subordinate” envisions a broader class than principal officers. If the majority only intended to limit the decision to principal officers, why evade the traditional tripartite classification? Rather than focusing on the official’s category, the majority constructs a test centered on whether the “subordinate” exercises “the President’s power” (i.e., executive power). But it concludes that it “has no occasion today to define the bounds of what such power entails.” …Does Slaughter permit the removal of the border patrol agent who seizes drugs at the border or the Social Security clerk who denies a claim for disability benefits? Does supervision of these employees by principal officers alleviate the problem? If not, which employees exercise “executive power” and which perform non-executive functions? Those questions have significant implications for over two million federal employees and, more broadly, the ability of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law.”

    • Trump Personnel Office Looks to Crack Down on Agencies’ Staffing (Bloomberg Law; 1 Jul 2026)

      “The proposed rule, set to be published Thursday in the Federal Register, would give OPM and chief human resource officers a more direct role in agency staffing. OPM and the Office of Management and Budget would oversee new annual staffing plans submitted by each agency at the start of the fiscal year, as well as the creation of new strategic hiring committees.”

State & Local Restructuring & Funding

Civil Society

  • Trump administration in talks with Texas over lawyers for migrant children (Austin American-Statesman; 3 Jul 2026)

    “President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is in talks with the Texas Attorney General’s Office about taking over representation of unaccompanied minor children, sources have confirmed. It’s a move some advocates say appears to be a step toward mass deportation.”

  • The Collapse of Federal Funding for Non-profits (National Affairs; Summer 2026)

    “Starting in the mid-1960s, the federal government increasingly relied on and funded non-profit service providers to implement a range of policies and programs that Congress had passed. The government has supported these non-profits directly, through federal grants and contracts, and indirectly, through funding streams that pass through state and local government. Now, this hybrid system of federally funded, non-profit-provided services has collapsed. …However, accepting the demise of the old system does not mean we should sit on our hands. The individuals, families, and communities the system was meant to help are no less in need, and many face ever more troubled circumstances. Those of us who seek more effective, sustainable, and legitimate ways of helping them have a lot of work to do. We can begin by anticipating some tangible changes and normative shifts that could help form a new, more resilient system.”

Student Debt & Other Student Concerns

Conflicts Over Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

Access to Justice