Notably, in a footnote, the Court seemed to make arguments that could be easily applied to the student loan forgiveness challenge. This is notable, as the Biden administration argued that to conclude that Missouri and Nebraska have standing to sue over the student loan forgiveness plan, the Court would have to abandon key precedent on standing. The States’ novel standing argument, if accepted, would entail expansive judicial direction” of executive actions. “By concluding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing here, we abide by and reinforce the proper role of the Federal Judiciary under Article III. And Justice Kavanaugh seemed to be drawing a line in the sand that the justices do not have an appetite for dramatically reworking Supreme Court precedent on Article III standing to give states more flexibility to challenge the federal government. The Court concluded that there was no judiciary authority to order the Executive Branch to arrest more people under immigration laws, as the states had sought. By ensuring that a plaintiff has standing to sue, federal courts ‘prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.’” Standing doctrine helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper-and properly limited-role in our constitutional system. In his majority opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “As this Court’s precedents amply demonstrate, Article III standing is ‘not merely a troublesome hurdle to be overcome if possible so as to reach the ‘merits’ of a lawsuit which a party desires to have adjudicated it is a part of the basic charter promulgated by the Framers of the Constitution at Philadelphia in 1787. In an 8-1 decision, the Court concluded that the states do not have Article III standing. ![]() In that case, the states of Texas and Louisiana sued the federal government over claims that they incurred costs related to immigration enforcement that should have been handled by the federal government. Texas, a case involving a dispute over federal immigration policy. On Friday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in United States v. Latest Supreme Court Rulings May Be Important In Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Cases In particular, Justice Barrett pressed attorneys for the state challengers why MOHELA was not the entity suing if the agency in fact would be harmed by Biden’s plan, and why MOHELA was not forced to join the suit if - as the challengers argued - the agency was more or less part of the state government apparatus. MOHELA has authority to sue, and be sued, in its own name, and has only a relatively minimal financial connection to the state treasury.Īt the Supreme Court hearing last February, four justices - including Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett - made comments suggesting that the challengers may not have standing. ![]() But attorneys for the government pointed out during February oral arguments before the Supreme Court that MOHELA is, by statute, legally and financially independent of the state of Missouri.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |