ReportWire

Tag: NRLIN:OSCOTUS

  • U.S. Supreme Court’s Barrett again declines to block Biden student debt relief

    U.S. Supreme Court’s Barrett again declines to block Biden student debt relief

    [ad_1]

    Nov 4 (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Friday again declined to block President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel billions of dollars in student debt, this time in a challenge brought by two Indiana borrowers, even as a lower court considers whether to lift a freeze it imposed on the program in a different case.

    Barrett denied an emergency request by the Indiana borrowers, represented by a conservative legal group, to bar the U.S. Department of Education from implementing the Democratic president’s plan to forgive debt held by qualified people who had taken loans to pay for college.

    Barrett on Oct. 20 denied a similar request by a Wisconsin taxpayers organization represented by another conservative legal group. The justice acted in the cases because she is the justice assigned to handle certain emergency requests from a group of states that includes Indiana and Wisconsin.

    The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 21 put the policy on hold in yet another conservative challenge by six Republican-led states while it considered their request for injunction pending their appeal of their case’s dismissal. That request remains pending.

    Biden’s plan, unveiled in August, was designed to forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 per year, or $250,000 for married couples. Borrowers who received Pell Grants to benefit lower-income college students would have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled.

    The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office in September calculated that debt forgiveness would eliminate about $430 billion of the $1.6 trillion in outstanding student debt and that more than 40 million Americans would be eligible to benefit.

    The policy fulfilled a promise Biden made during the 2020 presidential campaign to help debt-saddled former college students. Democrats hope the policy will boost support for them in Tuesday’s midterm elections in which control of Congress is at stake.

    Friday’s case was filed by two borrowers, Frank Garrison and Noel Johnson, represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, and claimed they would be irreparably harmed if some of their student loans were automatically forgiven because they would face increased state tax liabilities.

    Soon after they sued, the Department of Education created an opt-out option for borrowers. U.S. District Judge Richard Young on Oct. 21 dismissed the case, finding that the debt forgiveness program did not injure Garrison and Johnson.

    The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 28 declined to block the plan while Garrison and Johnson pursued an appeal, noting that the program is “not compulsory” and that the plaintiffs could avoid tax liability simply by opting out.

    Caleb Kruckenberg, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation, in a statement expressed disappointment that Barrett declined to block the plan while his clients pursued their appeal but said they will “continue to fight this program in court.”

    “Practically since this program was announced, the administration has sought to avoid judicial scrutiny,” he said. “Thus far they have succeeded. But that does not change the fact that this program is illegal from stem to stern.”

    Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Rosalba O’Brien

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    Nate Raymond

    Thomson Reuters

    Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. Supreme Court takes up Texas abortion case, lets ban remain

    U.S. Supreme Court takes up Texas abortion case, lets ban remain

    [ad_1]

    Oct 22 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on Nov. 1 a challenge to a Texas law that imposes a near-total ban on the procedure and lets private citizens enforce it – a case that could dramatically curtail abortion access in the United States if the justices endorse the measure’s unique design.

    The justices took up requests by President Joe Biden’s administration and abortion providers to immediately review their challenges to the law. The court, which on Sept. 1 allowed the law to go into effect, declined to act on the Justice Department’s request to immediately block enforcement of the measure.

    The court will consider whether the law’s unusual private-enforcement structure prevents federal courts from intervening to strike it down and whether the federal government is even allowed to sue the state to try to block it.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    The measure bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, a point when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. It makes an exception for a documented medical emergency but not for cases of rape or incest.

    Liberal Justice Sotomayor dissented from the court’s deferral of a decision on whether to block enforcement of the law while the litigation continues. Sotomayor said the law’s novel design has suspended nearly all abortions in Texas, the second most populous U.S. state, with about 29 million people.

    “The state’s gambit has worked. The impact is catastrophic,” Sotomayor wrote.

    The Texas dispute is the second major abortion case that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has scheduled for the coming months, with arguments set for Dec. 1 over the legality of a restrictive Mississippi abortion law.

    The Texas and Mississippi measures are among a series of Republican-backed laws passed at the state level limiting abortion rights – coming at a time when abortion opponents are hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade that legalized the procedure nationwide.

    Mississippi has asked the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the Texas attorney general on Thursday signaled that he also would like to see that ruling fall.

    A supporter of reproductive rights holds a sign outside the Texas State Capitol building during the nationwide Women’s March, held after Texas rolled out a near-total ban on abortion procedures and access to abortion-inducing medications, in Austin, Texas, U.S. October 2, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

    Lower courts already have blocked Mississippi’s law banning abortions starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    The Texas measure takes enforcement out of the hands of state officials, instead enabling private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists a woman in getting an abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the embryo. That feature has helped shield the law from being immediately blocked as it made it more difficult to directly sue the state.

    Individual citizens can be awarded a minimum of $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits under the law. Critics have said this provision lets people act as anti-abortion bounty hunters, a characterization its proponents reject.

    Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the abortion providers, said Friday’s decision to hear their case “brings us one step closer to the restoration of Texans’ constitutional rights and an end to the havoc and heartache of this ban.”

    Alexis McGill Johnson, president of healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, said it is “devastating” that the justices did not immediately block a law that already has had a “catastrophic impact” after being in effect nearly two months.

    “Patients who have the means have fled the state, traveling hundreds of miles to access basic care, and those without means have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will,” she added.

    Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Texas Right to Life anti-abortion group, praised the court’s action, saying it “will continue to save an estimated 100 babies per day, and because the justices will actually discuss whether these lawsuits are valid in the first place.”

    The Supreme Court only rarely decides to hear cases before lower courts have ruled, indicating that the justices have deemed the Texas matter of high public importance and requiring immediate review.

    The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in September challenging the Texas law, arguing that it is unconstitutional and explicitly designed to evade judicial review.

    Rulings in Texas and Mississippi cases are due by the end of next June, but could come sooner.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link