News

Student Loan Case Before Supreme Court Poses Pressing Question: Who Can Sue?


WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in a challenge from six Republican-led states over President Biden’s plan to wipe out more than $400 billion in student debt, the The first question the court will discover is not whether the plan is legal. It will be whether states even have the right to sue.

For most of American history, partisan lawsuits by states challenging federal programs were rare. That changed later a 2007 Supreme Court decision has given states “particular care” in determining when they have legal status, and this trend has been amplified by the growing partisan divide among state attorneys general.

“State politicians are using state status as a way to wage political or policy battles against the current administration in court rather than through the political process,” he said. Jonathan H. Adler, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University. “There is good reason to think that this instrument of particular interest has spiraled out of control and needs to be cut back. But it’s hard to limit it in a way that isn’t seen as an opportunity for one side or the other.”

Partisan lawsuits by states challenging federal actions, plunging the judiciary into all forms of political controversy and strengthening its power, have exploded in recent years, said the report. Paul Nolette, a political scientist at Marquette University. He said the increase in such cases began after 2014, during the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency.

“It’s a reflection of the overall increase in polarization in American politics,” he said.

Republican state attorneys general filed 12 multi-state lawsuits against the administration during Obama’s first term and 46 cases during his second term. aggregate data by Professor Nolette. During President Donald J. Trump’s single term, the Democratic attorney general filed 155 such lawsuits. And the Republican attorney general has filed 56 such lawsuits against the Biden administration to date.

The lawsuits have tackled issues ranging from fuel emissions to transgender rights, from the census to the border wall, from migratory birds to horse racing.

When Governor Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, was the state’s attorney general, he said his job description during the Obama years was simple: “I go to office, I sue the federal government and I go home.”

In February alone, Ken Paxton, Mr. Abbott’s successor as attorney general of Texas, announced five lawsuits against the Biden administration, on abortion, gun rights, stock regulation, government spending, and air quality.

However, states can sue only when they can prove that they have suffered direct and specific damages. And while the Supreme Court may have relaxed that requirement, it hasn’t waived it.

In the case of student loans, Professor Adler said, “the standing question is probably going to dominate the oral argument.”

The main lawsuit against the program, which forgives up to $20,000 in debt to millions of federal borrowers, has been filed by six states: Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina. They argue that Mr Biden has exceeded his authority under a 2003 federal law that allows the secretary of education to amend financial aid programs for students “related to war or other military activity or situational conflict”. national emergency”.

Judge Henry E. Autrey of the Federal District Court in St. Louis dismiss the lawsuit on the standing ground.

“While the plaintiffs presented significant and substantial challenges to the forgiveness plan,” the judge wrote, “the plaintiffs are currently unable to proceed to address these challenges.”

Federal Court of Appeals block programfocused on the possibility that a federal lending nonprofit, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, might not pay Missouri if the program was allowed to continue.

In the Supreme Court, states also argued that the debt forgiveness program would reduce their tax revenue. “If those arguments are accepted, it will expand the position of the state in extraordinary ways,” said Tara Leigh Grovea law professor at the University of Texas and the author of a legal review article about lawsuits that states have brought against the federal government.

Decision in 2007, Massachusetts sues the Environmental Protection Agency. particular interest in our standing analysis.”

That evoked one of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s most memorable disagreements. Permanent requests to relax “because injuries are claimed to be state-forced,” the judge wrote, “have no basis in our jurisprudence.”

Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the dissenting views of the chief justice, as well as Judge Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016.

Two law professors say Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is illegal submit a summary supported the administration and called on the judges to dismiss the states’ challenge on a standing basis.

“The danger of supporting extravagant theories of state status has exploded following this court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA,” the professors wrote. Samuel L. Bray by Notre Dame and William Baude of the University of Chicago.

They wrote: “Over the past decade, the state attorney general has relied on the underrepresented wording of the case’s ‘special interest’, generating a series of lawsuits with established theories. fragile arena against the government of the opposition political party. Widespread reading of that case should be strongly denied by this court, lest the state’s position would be allowed to transform the role of the federal judiciary.

The professors criticized the only theory upheld by the appellate court, concerning the Missouri lending agency, saying it “would not be taken seriously in the usual context.”

Questions about state status also play a prominent role in November controversy via immigration enforcement guide issued by the Biden administration has set priorities in deciding which illegal immigrants should be arrested and detained.

Texas and Louisiana have sued to block guidelines that they say have allowed many immigrants with criminal records to go free while their cases are underway, placing a burden on the justice system and services. state society.

The lower courts blocked the instructions. IN a summary of the Supreme CourtLegal counsel Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the administration, wrote that something unusual was going on.

“For most of our nation’s history, a suit like this was unprecedented,” she wrote. “The courts do not allow states to sue the federal government based on the indirect, downstream effects of federal policies.”

When the case was contested, Ms. Prelogar urged the judges to impose limits. “Federal courts,” she said, “should not now be turned into open forums for all policy disputes between states and national governments.”

The debate was met with mixed reactions, a response that seemed to reflect the judges’ views on the underlying legal issue.

Judge Elena Kagan said that allowing states to sue based on speculative damages was a dangerous trend. “We’re going to be in a situation where every administration is faced with lawsuits by countries, you know, that can bring a policy to a standstill, to an impasse, just by just pointing it out. cost a dollar,” she said.

In contrast, Justice Alito accused the Biden administration of hypocrisy and opportunism. “So this is a particularly hostile rule for the state’s position,” he said. “How does that fit with Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court says there is a particular interest in the state’s position?”

Professor Grove said the immigration and student loan cases presented to the courts a dangerous choice.

“These cases are like standing on steroids,” she says. “I am very worried that the Supreme Court will accept some of the extremely broad theories about the status of the state that they have toyed with in the past.”

“States should not have a special right to take federal law enforcement to court,” she added. They are subject to the same requirements as private parties, which would eliminate most of these lawsuits. That would be one way to reduce these litigation, ease the pressure on the courts, and save the courts from any single political controversy that arises involving the federal executive.”

The problem, Professor Adler said, is that “it is often difficult to convince a majority of courts to reject a position when a majority of courts believe that underlying value claims are strong.”

news7f

News7F: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button