SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
biden v nebraska
The Radical Right-Wing Court Has Destroyed a Crucial Judicial Guardrail
Now that the court has obliterated the distinction of what constitutes legal standing, there are no limits to what this least democratic branch of government — and its extremist majority — might do.
Jul 03, 2023
One ruling hidden inside one of the Supreme Court’s horrendous decisions last week hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves: the court’s radical expansion of who has standing to bring cases before the court.
When I argued cases before the Supreme Court in the 1970s, a challenger had to show they’d suffered a specific injury that could be remedied by relief from a federal court. If they failed to establish such standing, the high court would dismiss the case without considering the merits of their claim.
The necessity to establish standing to bring a case before the Supreme Court has been an important guardrail preventing the court from getting into matters the Constitution has reserved for the other branches of government.
But on Friday, in Biden v. Nebraska — striking down President Biden’s student loan program — the majority decided that Missouri had standing to challenge the program. Why? Because a quasi-independent state agency — the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) — might suffer financial losses from the loan program. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority:
“The … plan harms MOHELA in the performance of its public function and so directly harms the State that created and controls MOHELA. Missouri thus has suffered an injury in fact sufficient to give it standing to challenge the Secretary’s plan.”
Directly harms the state? Hello?
As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, “In adjudicating Missouri’s claim, the majority reaches out to decide a matter it has no business deciding” — with a ruling that “blows through a constitutional guardrail intended to keep courts acting like courts.”From now on, a state can challenge any action of the federal government merely by setting up a quasi-independent agency indirectly affected by it.
Bad enough that the court’s majority is now making up its own laws — disregarding the Supreme Court’s own precedents it disagrees with, deciding Congress hasn’t authorized certain actions it disagrees with, and finding certain practices it disagrees with to be unconstitutional.
Bad enough that three of the justices now in the majority were appointed by a man who lost the popular vote, who was impeached twice, and who promoted an insurrection against the United States. And two others were appointed by a man who also lost the popular vote and led the nation into war in Iraq under false pretenses.
Now that the court has obliterated the guardrail on what it can consider, there are no limits to what this least democratic branch of government — and its extremist majority — might do.
Which is why it’s so important to reform the court — in ways I’ve suggested here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Petition Demands Alito Recuse From Student Debt Cases Tied to Billionaire Benefactor
"The appearance of corruption—your ties to Mr. Singer, and his ties to organizations with business before the court in Brown and Nebraska—clear the high ethical bar you established for yourself at your confirmation hearing in 2006."
Jun 23, 2023
A petition circulated Friday demands that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recuse himself from a pair of cases that will decide the fate of President Joe Biden's student debt relief proposal, citing the judge's ties to a billionaire GOP megadonor who funds conservative groups fighting to kill the president's plan.
Earlier this week, ProPublica published a bombshell expośe revealing Alito took a previously undisclosed 2008 luxury fishing trip to Alaska on a private jet belonging to Paul Singer, whose hedge fund repeatedly had cases before the Supreme Court from which Alito declined to recuse himself.
Alito's Alaska getaway was organized by Leonard Leo, who heads the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization promoting an 18th-century interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The group has played a key role in the U.S. judiciary's rightward shift, and all six conservative Supreme Court justices are current or former members.
"In light of your now well-documented financial entanglement with billionaire investor Paul Singer, we write to demand your immediate recusal from two cases in which Mr. Singer appears to have direct or indirect ties to litigants or amici—Biden v. Nebraska and U.S. Department of Education v. Brown," begins the petition, which is being circulated by the Debt Collective.
The petition continues:
As you know, these cases will determine whether the Biden administration is able to deliver transformational student debt relief to more than 40 million working families...
Given your stated concerns over "the appearance of impropriety" related to potential conflicts of interest and the standard for recusal you set out in your own Senate confirmation hearing (recusal is needed when "any possible question might arise"), we expect that you agree that it is necessary to recuse yourself from both cases. We urge you to immediately and publicly communicate your intent to do so before decisions on these cases are released.
"The appearance of corruption—your ties to Mr. Singer, and his ties to organizations with business before the court in Brown and Nebraska—clear the high ethical bar you established for yourself at your confirmation hearing in 2006," the petition states. "There is only one path forward: You must recuse yourself in both Brown and Nebraska.
The petition cites Singer's "major" financial support for the Judicial Crisis Network, which has given at least $150,000 in direct financial support to the Job Creators Network, a right-wing dark money group bankrolling the plaintiffs in U.S. Department of Education v. Brown.
Singer also chairs the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank known for members like Christopher Rufo, purveyor of baseless anti-critical race theory hysteria, and Diane Yap, who stands accused of promoting racist stereotypes under the guise of countering anti-Asian racism and championing educational merit. The organization filed a consolidated amicus brief in Biden v. Nebraska imploring the Supreme Court to strike down the student debt relief plan. In addition to the petition, the Debt Collective also noted that the Supreme Court on Friday "ruled that states do not have legal standing to sue the Biden administration on federal policies."
"In today's United States v. Texas decision, the court ruled that the states of Texas and Louisiana do not have standing to try to use the courts to force the Biden administration to enforce immigration laws more punitively," the group said. "Last week, in Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas also did not have standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens—similar to the lawsuit brought on by Republican attorneys general in the sham student debt lawsuit."
Observing these rulings, Debt Collective spokesperson Braxton Brewington said in a statement Friday that "if the Supreme Court strikes down student debt relief, it will be a stark deviation from their rulings thus far and further expose the political corruption within this court."
"In Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett's own words, the ruling for student debt relief should be 'open and shut' in favor of mostly low-income families burdened with the crushing weight of student debt," Brewington added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bombshell': Internal Docs Highlight Flaws in Student Debt Case Now Before Supreme Court
"These emails confirm what every honest observer has long understood: Missouri's lawsuit is just a partisan hack job aimed at getting the right-wing attorney general's name in the paper," said one expert.
Jun 16, 2023
As the U.S. Supreme Court nears a decision on President Joe Biden's student debt relief proposal, an advocacy group on Friday published internal records revealing the "anxiety and confusion" of staffers at a loan company critics say is being spuriously used by Republican attorneys general in their attack on the president's plan.
Internal documents from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA)—a private state-chartered lender—obtained by the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) under Missouri's Sunshine Law show that agency employees were confused by then-state Attorney General Eric Schmitt's lawsuit and argument that Biden's relief plan could harm the company.
"MOHELA's own staff agree—the case currently before the Supreme Court that is holding up debt relief for tens of millions of borrowers lacks standing, and it should be tossed aside."
That dubious claim—an independent report showed that not only would MOHELA not be harmed by Biden's proposal, it would make more money—forms the purported basis for MOHELA's standing in the suit, Biden v. Nebraska. Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina are suing the administration, alleging that its debt forgiveness plan violates the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and Administrative Procedure Act.
MOHELA is not even a plaintiff in the case, a fact that critics including progressive U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) have cited in calling for the dismissal of the suit—one of two student debt relief cases the high court is expected to rule on sometime this month.
"These emails confirm what every honest observer has long understood: Missouri's lawsuit is just a partisan hack job aimed at getting the right-wing attorney general's name in the paper," Ella Azoulay, SBPC's research and policy analyst, said in a statement.
"MOHELA's own staff agree—the case currently before the Supreme Court that is holding up debt relief for tens of millions of borrowers lacks standing, and it should be tossed aside," Azoulay added.
\u201c\ud83d\udea8Bombshell\ud83d\udea8\n\nInternal emails from MOHELA show that even MOHELA says the lawsuit in front of SCOTUS to kill student debt cancellation should be dismissed for lack of standing & that MOHELA isn't harmed by cancellation\u201d— The Debt Collective \ud83d\udfe5 (@The Debt Collective \ud83d\udfe5) 1686945609
"Just out of curiosity, is MOHELA apart [sic] of the lawsuit going on to prevent the loan forgiveness?" wrote one employee in an email. "Are we the bad guys?”
Another staffer wrote that Schmitt's lawsuit "has nothing to do with us, except that they're using the [Missouri] consumers harm as standing."
Indeed, in an October 2022 letter to Bush—who had inquired about the lender's relationship with the attorney general's office—MOHELA said its "executives were not involved in the decision" by Schmitt to sue the Biden administration.
\u201cThe lawsuit against student debt relief was filed by the state of Missouri, saying student loan servicer MOHELA was financially harmed (they weren't). But NEW internal documents by MOHELA staff show even *they* think the lawsuit lacks legal standing.\n\nSCOTUS could rule next week.\u201d— Braxton \ud83d\udfe5 (@Braxton \ud83d\udfe5) 1686947409
"I think MOHELA was opposed to this move, but couldn't do anything about it," wrote yet another staffer. "The Mo. state AG needed to claim that our borrowers were harmed for standing, so they're making us look bad by filing this not only with Mo. on it, but especially bad because they filed it in Mo."
During oral arguments in February, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority signaled it is poised to side with Republicans challenging the debt cancellation program and strike it down.
Last week, a trio of progressive U.S. lawmakers—Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)—implored the Biden administration to have a backup plan to aid student borrowers if the Supreme Court kills its debt cancellation proposal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular