Report on the Shifting Balance of Governmental Powers and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Institutional Integrity and Sustainable Development

Recent shifts in the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the United States government have created a volatile landscape for policy implementation, directly impacting progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo has fundamentally altered the framework of statutory interpretation, limiting the deference given to federal agencies. This report analyzes these developments, with a specific focus on their implications for SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Federal Education Policy: A Challenge to SDG 4 and SDG 10

The current administration has initiated significant changes in federal education policy that challenge the principles of inclusive and equitable education enshrined in SDG 4. These policy shifts also threaten to widen disparities, undermining SDG 10.

Legislative and Executive Actions

• The “Big Beautiful Bill” (2025): This law introduces substantial reforms to higher education finance and federal student aid. Its provisions, which include funding cuts for K-12 schools and the promotion of privatization, run counter to the objectives of SDG 4 to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.
• Dismantling of Equity Initiatives: The administration’s focus on reshaping higher education by targeting “woke” and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives directly conflicts with SDG 10’s goal of reducing inequality and SDG 4’s aim for inclusive learning environments.
• Contradictory Agency Actions: The administration’s simultaneous efforts to shutter the U.S. Department of Education while also utilizing the agency for rulemaking processes, such as for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, create policy instability. This volatility complicates the consistent implementation of programs necessary to achieve educational development goals.

The Loper Decision and its Effect on SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The Loper v. Raimondo ruling, which overturned the long-standing Chevron deference, represents a significant recalibration of institutional power. This judicial development has profound implications for SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

Redefining Judicial Review

By ending judicial deference to administrative agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, Loper empowers courts to exercise “independent judgment.” This shift was initially observed in cases restraining Biden-era policies but is now being applied in the current political context. The core of this change relates directly to SDG 16.6: developing effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

1. Pre-Loper Context (Chevron Deference): Courts deferred to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes. This was evident when the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX to protect transgender students was upheld, aligning with SDG 4.a (safe and inclusive learning environments) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).
2. Post-Loper Context: Courts are no longer bound by agency interpretations. This provides a new legal framework that could potentially restrain executive overreach, thereby reinforcing the separation of powers—a cornerstone of SDG 16.

Application of Loper: Case Studies in Sustainable Development

The legal precedent set by Loper is being actively cited in litigation across various policy domains, impacting multiple SDGs. Courts and litigants are using the ruling to challenge executive actions, with mixed results for sustainable development objectives.

Impact on Education (SDG 4, SDG 5, SDG 10)

• In Tennessee v. Cardona (2025), a court cited Loper to strike down a Department of Education regulation related to Title IX, stating the agency had impermissibly redefined “sex.” This ruling has direct consequences for SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and the creation of inclusive learning environments under SDG 4.
• In Missouri v. Trump (2025), the Eighth Circuit cited Loper to bar the Department of Education from canceling student loans under the SAVE program, affecting progress toward SDG 4.3 on equitable access to tertiary education.
• Litigants in National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education used the Loper precedent to argue against agency guidance that would discontinue certain diversity practices, a matter central to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Broader Implications for Institutional Accountability (SDG 16)

• Immigration Policy: In Abrego Garcia v. Noem (2025), a court cited the principle of judicial independence from agency interpretation to mandate the return of a wrongfully removed individual, reinforcing access to justice as outlined in SDG 16.
• Restraining Executive Action: Litigants have cited Loper in cases involving reductions in agency personnel and the implementation of presidential directives, arguing for judicial checks on executive power to maintain the institutional balance promoted by SDG 16.

Conclusion: Loper as a Tool for Restoring Institutional Balance

The Loper v. Raimondo decision presents a complex dynamic. While it has been used to dismantle policies aligned with certain SDGs, it also offers a potent legal instrument for courts to restrain executive overreach and restore the separation of powers, a fundamental tenet of SDG 16. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings that appear to grant the executive branch significant discretion, the precedent set by Loper remains influential in lower courts. Its application will continue to be a critical factor in shaping policy and determining the nation’s ability to build the effective, accountable, and just institutions necessary for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The article extensively discusses federal education policy, including funding for K-12 schools, higher education finance reforms, student loan forgiveness programs, and the legal framework (Title IX) for ensuring inclusive educational environments.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The article specifically mentions legal battles over Title IX protections for transgender students, which relates directly to ending discrimination and ensuring equality in educational settings based on gender identity.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The issues of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for undocumented immigrants, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in schools, and Title IX protections all pertain to reducing inequalities based on origin, race, and gender identity.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The core theme of the article is the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The discussion of the Loper v. Raimondo Supreme Court case and its impact on the authority of federal agencies (like the Department of Education) is a direct examination of the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of national institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
   • This target is relevant due to the discussion of higher education finance, federal student aid, and student loan forgiveness programs like the SAVE program, which was barred by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Missouri v. Trump. The “Big Beautiful Bill” also introduces reforms to higher education finance.
2. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • This is connected to the legal challenges surrounding Title IX protections for transgender students, such as in Tennessee v. Cardona. The interpretation of Title IX directly impacts whether schools are considered safe and inclusive environments for all students. The debate over DEI programs also relates to this target.
3. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
   • The article highlights the legal fight over the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX to protect transgender students from discrimination. The court’s decision in Tennessee v. Cardona to set aside a regulation that redefined “discrimination on the basis of sex” is a direct example of actions affecting this target.
4. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • This target is addressed through the discussion of DACA, which provides protection to young undocumented immigrants, and the legal challenges to DEI programs. The case of National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education, where plaintiffs argued against discontinuing certain diversity practices, is a clear example.
5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The entire article revolves around this target. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference, fundamentally alters the accountability structure between federal agencies (the executive branch) and the courts (the judicial branch). It shifts power to the courts to interpret statutes, aiming to restrain executive agency actions and make them more accountable to judicial review.
6. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • The article demonstrates the “rule of law” in action by detailing how courts are interpreting and applying the new legal precedent set by Loper. Cases like Missouri v. Trump and Tennessee v. Cardona show the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws and checking the power of the executive branch, which is a core component of the rule of law.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 4.3 (Affordable Tertiary Education):
   • Indicator: The existence, modification, or cancellation of student loan forgiveness programs. The article mentions the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness promise and the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in Missouri v. Trump to bar the Department of Education from canceling student loans under the SAVE program. The passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” with its reforms to higher education finance is another measurable event.
2. For Target 5.1 (End Discrimination):
   • Indicator: The legal status and judicial interpretation of regulations aimed at preventing discrimination. The article points to the Department of Education’s regulation under Title IX to protect transgender students and the subsequent court ruling in Tennessee v. Cardona that set it aside. These legal decisions serve as direct indicators of the enforcement of non-discriminatory policies.
3. For Target 10.3 (Ensure Equal Opportunity):
   • Indicator: The status of policies and programs designed to protect vulnerable groups and promote diversity. The article mentions the court’s action to pause the rescission of DACA and the legal challenges against DEI initiatives, such as the “Dear Colleague” letter mentioned in National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education.
4. For Target 16.6 (Effective, Accountable Institutions):
   • Indicator: The number and outcome of court cases citing the Loper v. Raimondo precedent to challenge executive agency actions. The article provides specific examples, including Tennessee v. Cardona and Missouri v. Trump, where courts used Loper to justify restraining the Department of Education. This serves as a direct measure of the shift in institutional accountability.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: brookings.edu