Court rejects Biden's plan to wipe away $400 billion in student loan debt
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court last Friday effectively killed President Joe Biden's $400 billion plan to cancel or reduce federal student loan debts for millions of Americans. "This fight is not over," he said.
The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, said the Biden administration overstepped its authority with the plan, and it leaves borrowers on the hook for repayments that are expected to resume in the fall.
Biden was to announce a new set of actions to protect student loan borrowers later Friday, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly beforehand and discussed the matter on condition of anonymity. The president said in a statement the ruling was wrong and accused Republicans of "stunning" hypocrisy on the issue.
The court held that the administration needed Congress' endorsement before undertaking so costly a program. The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with national emergencies, known as the HEROES Act, gave Biden the power he claimed.
"Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
Justice Elena Kagan, wrote in a dissent, joined by the court's two other liberals, that the majority of the court "overrides the combined judgment of the Legislative and Executive Branches, with the consequence of eliminating loan forgiveness for 43 million Americans." Kagan read a summary of her dissent in court to emphasize her disagreement.
Roberts, perhaps anticipating negative public reaction and aware of declining approval of the court, added an unusual coda to his opinion, cautioning that the liberals' dissent should not be mistaken for disparagement of the court itself. "It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country," the chief justice wrote.
Loan repayments will resume in October, although interest will begin accruing in September, the Education Department has announced. Payments have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago.
The forgiveness program would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, would have had an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.
Twenty-six million people had applied for relief and 43 million would have been eligible, the administration said. The cost was estimated at $400 billion over 30 years.
Advocacy groups supporting debt cancellation condemned the decision while demanding that Biden find another avenue to fulfill his promise of debt relief.
Natalia Abrams, president and founder of the Student Debt Crisis Center, said the responsibility for new action falls "squarely" on Biden's shoulders. "The president possesses the power, and must summon the will, to secure the essential relief that families across the nation desperately need," Abrams said in a statement.
The loan plan joins other pandemic-related initiatives that faltered at the Supreme Court.
Conservative majorities ended an eviction moratorium that had been imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and blocked a plan to require workers at big companies to be vaccinated or undergo regular testing and wear a mask on the job. The court upheld a plan to require vaccinations of health-care workers.
The earlier programs were billed largely as public health measures intended to slow the spread of COVID-19. The loan forgiveness plan, by contrast, was aimed at countering the economic effects of the pandemic.
In more than three hours of arguments last February, conservative justices voiced their skepticism that the administration had the authority to wipe away or reduce student loans held by millions.
Republican-led states arguing before the court said the plan would have amounted to a "windfall" for 20 million people who would have seen their entire student debt disappear and been better off than they were before the pandemic.
Biden said GOP officials "had no problem with billions in pandemic-related loans to businesses. ... And those loans were forgiven. But when it came to providing relief to millions of hard-working Americans, they did everything in their power to stop it."
Roberts was among those on the court who questioned whether non-college workers would essentially be penalized for a break for the college educated.
In contrast, the administration grounded the need for the sweeping loan forgiveness in the COVID-19 emergency and the continuing negative impacts on people near the bottom of the economic ladder. The declared emergency ended on May 11.
Without the promised loan relief, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer told the justices, "delinquencies and defaults will surge."
At those arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her fellow justices would be making a mistake if they took for themselves, instead of leaving it to education experts, "the right to decide how much aid to give" people who would struggle if the program were struck down.
The HEROES Act — the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act — has allowed the secretary of education to waive or modify the terms of federal student loans in connection with a national emergency. The law was primarily intended to keep service members from being hurt financially while they fought in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Biden had once doubted his own authority to broadly cancel student debt, but announced the program last August. Legal challenges quickly followed.
The court majority said the Republican-led states had cleared an early hurdle that required them to show they would be financially harmed if the program had been allowed to take effect.
The states did not even rely on any direct injury to themselves, but instead pointed to the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a state-created company that services student loans.
Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell, arguing before the court in February, said the Authority would lose about 40% of its revenues if the Biden plan went into effect. Independent research has cast doubt on the financial harm MOHELA would face, suggesting that the agency would still see an increase in revenue even if Biden's cancellation went through. That information was not part of the court record.
A federal judge initially found that the states would not be harmed and dismissed their lawsuit before an appellate panel said the case could proceed.
In a second case, the justices ruled unanimously that two Texans who filed a separate challenge did not have legal standing to sue. But the outcome of that case has no bearing on the court's decision to block the debt relief plan.
––––––
Associated Press writers Collin Binkley, Colleen Long and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
Justices rule for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled last Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. One of the court's liberal justices wrote in a dissent that the decision's effect is to "mark gays and lesbians for second-class status" and that the decision opens the door to other discrimination.
The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith, saying that she can refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. The court said forcing her to create the websites would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment.
The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that's different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court's six conservative justices that the First Amendment "envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands." Gorsuch said that the court has long held that "the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong."
Gorsuch said that a ruling against Smith would allow the government "to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty." For example, a gay website designer could be forced to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage, he wrote. "Countless other creative professionals, too, could be forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking their minds and incurring sanctions for doing so."
The decision is a win for religious rights and one in a series of cases in recent years in which the justices have sided with religious plaintiffs. Last year, for example, the court ruled along ideological lines for a football coach who prayed on the field at his public high school after games.
The court's dissenting liberal justices led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision will allow a range of businesses to discriminate.
"Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class," Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sotomayor, who read a summary of her dissent in court to underscore her disagreement, said that the decision's logic "cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to "traditional" families, she wrote.
President Joe Biden said in a statement that the ruling was "disappointing," adding that it "weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations – including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women."
The decision is also a retreat on gay rights for the court. For nearly three decades, the court has expanded the rights of LGBTQ people, most notably giving same-sex couples the right to marry in 2015 and announcing five years later in a decision written by Gorsuch that a landmark civil rights law also protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from employment discrimination.
Sotomayor referenced that history in her dissent, writing: "The LGBT rights movement has made historic strides, and I am proud of the role this Court has recently played in that history. Today, however, we are taking steps backward."
"Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. ... the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status," she wrote at another point.
Even as it has expanded gay rights, however, the court has been careful to say those with differing religious views needed to be respected. The belief that marriage can only be between one man and one woman is an idea that "long has been held — and continues to be held — in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court's gay marriage decision.
The court returned to that idea five years ago when it was confronted with the case of a Christian baker who objected to designing a cake for a same-sex wedding. The court issued a limited ruling in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, saying there had been impermissible hostility toward his religious views in the consideration of his case. Phillips' lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, also brought the most recent case to the court. On Friday, she said the Supreme Court was right to reaffirm that the government cannot compel people to say things they do not believe.
"Disagreement isn't discrimination, and the government can't mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it," she said in a statement.
Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that's where she ran into conflict with state law.
Colorado, like most other states, has a law forbidding businesses open to the public from discriminating against customers. And about half of the states have laws explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Colorado said that under its so-called public accommodations law, if Smith offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide them to all customers, regardless of sexual orientation. Businesses that violate the law can be fined, among other things. Smith argued that applying the law to her violates her First Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court agreed.
The case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
