The Supreme Court is wrapping up its summer session with a big week.
It has to release 10 opinions before the term ends — including some of the most awaited decisions on key issues addressing student loan issues, affirmative action, gay and religious rights, and voting. The next round of decisions should be released Tuesday morning.
Here’s a breakdown of what to expect:
1. Student load shutdown
The Court will also decide whether or not President Joe Biden can wipe away millions of student loans. Biden’s infamous proposal includes erasing $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those with incomes below $125,000 a year or households earning less than $250,000.
Arguments were heard in two cases: Biden v. Nebraska (brought by six Republican led states) and U.S. Department of Education v. Brown.
Those against the plan argued the Biden administration doesn’t have authority to forgive such a substantial amount of loans while the administration stood its ground claiming it does have the authority to implement loan forgiveness but the challengers don’t have standing to bring the lawsuits before the Court. The Court has to decide: a) if those challenging Biden have “standing” to sue and b) does the Department of Education have legal authority to forgive the student loan debt?
Note: Conservative justices hold a majority within the Court and they seem eager to scratch Biden’s plan. When the Court originally heard arguments on the issue, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Biden’s authority to broadly cancel the loans and suggested the administration exceeded its authority. Justice Roberts also noted that Biden’s program would cost half-trillion dollars.
“If you’re talking about this in the abstract, I think most casual observers would say if you’re going to give up that much…money, if you’re going to affect the obligations of that many Americans on a subject that’s of great controversy, they would think that’s something for Congress to act on” said Roberts.
Roberts also pushed back against the arguments of his liberal colleagues suggesting: “a person who passes up college to start a lawn service with borrowed money. “Nobody’s telling the person who is trying to set up the lawn service business that he doesn’t have to pay his loan.”
Loan payments have been on hold for three years due to the pandemic but are due to resume this summer, regardless of the Court’s ruling this week.
2. Affirmative action
Consideration of race during the school admissions process may come to an end. The question of affirmative action (primarily the consideration of race) continues to make headlines as one of the many decisive opinions the Supreme Court is set to release this week.
The Court faces two cases – one from Harvard and the other from the University of North Carolina. Although the Court previously approved the use of affirmative action in higher education, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the issue and expressed doubts about the practice when they originally heard arguments in October.
Note: Admissions officers can consider race when evaluating a potential student as long as its not the only factor they review. Meaning, institutions can’t have a quota but if a student identifies as a certain race or ethnicity, a school may now take that into account.
History of affirmative action: originally implemented to rectify historical discrimination. Although higher education institutions and corporate America support the policy and claim it’s necessary to foster diversity, many argue against the idea as opponents claim that the policy contradicts the notion that equality means all races are treated the same.
3. Rights clash between religion, speech and LGBTQ+
The battle between religious and gay rights continues with a case brought by a Christian graphic artist, Lorie Smith, who designs wedding websites but objected to creating them for same-sex couples. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
Colorado state law requires Smith to provide her services to all customers, but the designer claims the law violates her right to free speech. Smith argues the law forces artists to create work against their beliefs while her opponents fear that if the Supreme Court sides with Smith on this issue, businesses will be able to discriminate and refuse service.
4. Religious tolerance
Another issue of religious rights is set before the Court who will have to decide to what extent businesses must accommodate religious employees.
The case is based on a Christian mail carrier’s, Gerald Groff, refusal to work and deliver Amazon packages on Sundays —when he observes Christian Sabbath. Groff claimed he was forced to quit his job because the U.S. Postal Service wouldn’t accommodate him and sued after being disciplined for repeatedly missing his Sunday work shift.
Note: Currently, employers cannot discriminate based on religion (which includes religious belief and practice) and must accommodate the employee’s religious practice as long as it does not cause ‘undue hardship’ for the business.
The Supreme Court maintains a conservative majority (6-3) thus more supportive of free exercise of religion. Many await a decision on this issue as the conservating leaning Court is more likely to broaden religious rights.
5. Voting battle in South Carolina
In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Court must address whether or not state courts have the power to strike down congressional districts by state legislatures. The issue came up after the 2020 Census when South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature moved thousands of Black voters to a different district, clearing the way for a Republican seat. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP sued claiming the move was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Note:
- Gerrymandering: moving lines of a voting district to favor one political group over the other
- Racial gerrymandering: assigning voters to districts based on race — issue as it diminishes the voting power of voters of a specific race (can be challenged in federal courts).
- Partisan gerrymandering: when the lines are drawn to benefit one political party over the other (cannot be challenged in federal courts).
The state legislature fought back claiming re-drawing the map was only a political gerrymander, which is allowed, versus a race-driven one. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will determine how voters in both South Carolina and across the nation would challenge district maps.
6. Public officials and social media restrictions
The Court will also determine whether a public official can block critics from their personal social media accounts if the accounts are also used for official communications. The question was left unresolved after former President Donald J. Trump introduced the issue with his Twitter account.
In Lindke v. Freed, a city manager blocked and deleted comments from the plaintiff, Kevin Lindke, on his Facebook account. The city manager, James Freed, created his Facebook account as a personal page but then converted it to a public figure page. The Facebook included personal posts of family and events as well as formal press releases and information regarding his position as city manager. The Court will also consider O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, where school district officials blocked parents on social media.
Note: A decision on this issue will clarify when a public official’s use of social media is considered personal and when it’s a governmental function.
This will pave the way for a decision on whether or not a public official blocking an individual from their personal social media account violates the First Amendment (freedom of speech and petition). Now, there is no First Amendment argument available because the Amendment only protects against government censorship so if an official uses a social media account as a private citizen, instead of a ‘government actor,’ there is no case.
Add comment