News
Supreme Court’s decision on Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan may hinge on Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Published
1 year agoon
By
New Yorker
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
The fate of the Biden administration’s sweeping plan to cancel $400 billion in student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans may hinge on the newest conservative member of the Supreme Court: Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Barrett was the conservative justice who seemed the most unconvinced by the plaintiffs challenging student loan forgiveness, said Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University. Specifically, Shugerman said, Barrett didn’t seem to agree that they’d proven they have standing to sue.
“Barrett was vocally and deeply uncomfortable about ruling that any of the plaintiffs had standing,” Shugerman said.
More from Personal Finance:
Why Social Security retirement age, payroll tax may change
Experts argue Social Security retirement age shouldn’t pass 67
Return on waiting to claim Social Security is ‘huge’
As a rule, plaintiffs must prove that a policy would cause them injury in order to challenge it in the courts.
That requirement, which has long been defended by conservative justices, especially former Justice Antonin Scalia, is meant to avoid people using the legal system to fight policies they do not like or agree with.
The six GOP-led states that brought a lawsuit against the Biden plan argue that the debt cancellation for up to $20,000 per borrower would decrease profits for companies in their states that service federal student loans. That argument has become focused on the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA.
Nebraska’s solicitor general, James Campbell, who argued on behalf of the states in front of the justices on Feb. 28, said Biden’s plan threatened to eat away at MOHELA’s operating revenue by as much as 40%.
Barrett seemingly unsatisfied by plaintiff arguments
But Barrett asked Campbell why MOHELA itself was not suing to block the plan instead of Missouri.
Officials at MOHELA recently said it had no involvement in Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s decision to sue against the program.
“Do you want to address why MOHELA’s not here?” Barrett asked.
Campbell replied: “MOHELA doesn’t need to be here because the state has the authority to speak for them.”
Barrett wasn’t satisfied by that answer.
“Why didn’t the state just make MOHELA come then?” she asked. “If MOHELA is really an arm of the state … why didn’t you just strong-arm MOHELA and say you’ve got to pursue this suit?”
Many commentators were asking, ‘Where is the Missouri SG?’ It’s like, Where’s Waldo?”
Jed Shugerman
law professor at Fordham University
Campbell answered: “Your honor, that’s a question of state politics.”
Shugerman, the law professor, said Campbell fumbled to explain how a loss in revenue for MOHELA would harm Missouri.
“The Nebraska solicitor general was unconvincing,” Shugerman said. “It was a mess.”
Shugerman also criticized the decision to have Nebraska’s top state attorney argue the case in front of the justices as opposed to the solicitor general of Missouri. He said that would have been appropriate because Missouri is the state with the best claim of an injury.
“Many commentators were asking, ‘Where is the Missouri SG?’” he said. “It’s like, ‘Where’s Waldo?’”
Plan’s survival depends on 2 conservative votes
Barrett alone can’t save the program.
The liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor — are almost certain to vote in favor of the plan, Shugerman said.
On the other hand, three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito are likely to vote against it, he said.
Because of that, the Biden administration will likely need to convince not just Barrett but at least one of the other two conservative members of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“If she is a fourth vote, the question is, can she convince a fifth?” Shugerman said.
If the justices ignore the states’ lack of standing, they risk allowing any state or individual to challenge almost any federal program, said Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago.
“This is no way to run a federal democracy,” Schwinn said. “If the plaintiffs have a problem with loan cancellation, they should take it up through political processes.”
Source: CNBC
How can I tell whether an online car deal is a scam?
DOJ ‘Stonewalling’ House Ethics Committee Probe of Gaetz
Biden says he’ll stop sending offensive weapons to Israel if it invades Rafah
Idea of You Actor Nicholas Galitzine Addresses Sexuality
Chrissy Teigen Jokes What She Would Have Worn to Met But 'Wasn't Invited'
A Walnut Recall Has Been Linked to a Multistate E. Coli Outbreak
We Asked a Psychologist Why So Many Average Men Think They Can Beat a Top Female Athlete in Her Sport
The Empty Promises of ‘Medical-Grade’ Skin Care
Are Lululemon’s Leggings Getting Smaller?
Election 2024 live updates: Trump to hold rallies in Wisconsin, Michigan during court break
How can I tell whether an online car deal is a scam?
Former NFL Wife Says Taylor Swift Is ‘Drinking More’ With Travis Kelce
Remains of Vermont man who went missing last year found in New Hampshire
Four ‘Love Is Blind’ Alums Part of ‘Perfect Match’ Season 2 Cast
Search continues in White Mountains for missing Cambridge man
Trending
-
News23 hours ago
Rob Burrow makes public appearance with wife Lindsay at the ARIA Awards as he takes home two gongs for his Seven podcast
-
News14 hours ago
Recent homes sales in Greater Boston (May 8)
-
Tech20 hours ago
First Look: Apple’s New OLED iPad Pro Is Incredibly Light and Hella Bright
-
Travel12 hours ago
SAS Launches AI-Generated Campaign to Welcome Summer Season in Malmö
-
Tech20 hours ago
New “Apple Pencil Pro” can do a barrel roll
-
Tech22 hours ago
TikTok and its Chinese owner sue US government over “foreign adversary” law
-
News24 hours ago
Biden meets with executives from Citi, United Airlines, Marriott and others
-
Travel13 hours ago
Wego Introduces WegoBeds