Is this another instance of a bad case making bad law? I remember at the time there being concern that student loan forgiveness was unwise. Now, it is not the writ of any court to pass on the wisdom of a law. In the case of the Supreme Court they test the law only for constitutionality.
Before striking down the plan, the Supreme Court first said Missouri, one of the six states that challenged the lawfulness of the plan, had the right to sue, known as legal standing.
I would interpret that as the Court wanting to get to the merits, wanting to strike down this law as unwise, in other words.
Justice Elena Kagan authored the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson and summarized from the bench. "In every respect, the court today exceeds its proper, limited role in our nation's governance," she wrote.
Standing is a threshold inquiry, as is jurisdiction. Courts, state or federal, that do not want to address the merits often use standing as a reason not to. This is an article by CBS, not a legal scholar's analysis, yet, it seems to me that the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, was enough concerned with getting past the standing threshold that he spent time explaining it.
Yes:
The dissenting justices split from the majority regarding not only the legality of the relief plan, but also with its finding that the states had the right to sue. [That is standing.] In deciding the case at all, Kagan said the court overreached.
That finding allowed the court to consider whether the secretary of education had the power to forgive student loan debt under a law known as the HEROES Act.
The court, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the law does not grant the secretary that authority.
"We hold today that the act allows the secretary to 'waive or modify' existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up," Roberts wrote.
Here is Chief Justice Roberts once again cutting the baby in half, not going as far as he could, not as far as his corrupt, reactionary brethren Thomas, Alito, and Kavenaugh would have wished.
Roberts ended his opinion by noting that the disagreement among the court's members should not be mistaken for disparagement. "It is important that the public not be misled either," he cautioned. "Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country."
The court invoked the so-called "major questions" doctrine in part of its ruling, a legal theory that holds there must be clear congressional authorization for an executive branch agency to decide an issue of "vast economic or political significance."
The "economic and political significance" of the loan forgiveness plan, Roberts wrote, "is staggering by any measure."
When the Supreme Court reaches for a vague, general doctrine, way up on the high shelves, they want to act. The "major questions doctrine"! Lol. This is a reactionary activist court that is going to legislate from the bench and answer doctrinal questions later.
Yes:
"The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness," Kagan said.
The decision from the high court is a major defeat for Mr. Biden as he pursues reelection.
That's it: they don't want this elected president "making national policy."
"Today, we have concluded...that the words 'waive or modify' do not mean 'completely rewrite'; and that our precedent — old and new—requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy,"
Folks, trust me on this please, the bolded language is right from the Hughes Court in the 1930's.
