Printer-friendly version
East County Congressional leaders split in views on the rulings
By Miriam Raftery
Photo via Supreme Court website
July 3, 2023 (San Diego) – The Supreme Court on Friday issued two controversial decisions. By a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority found that President Joe Biden lacked authority to forgive student loans. The court also ruled that Christian web designer can refuse to create websites for same-sex couples, an action that eliminates civil rights protections enacted by many states for the LGTBQ community and potentially, other protected groups.
Those cases cap off a week in which justices earlier found affirmative action programs at universities to be unconstitutional, barring preference for racial minorities.
What do local representatives have to say about these decisions, and what might the long-term impacts be for students, the LGTBQ community, businesses and minorities concerned about discriminatory state laws?
Local Congressional representatives share contrasting reactions
Rep. Sara Jacobs, a Democrat whose district includes East County communities, posted on Twitter regarding the student loan decision. “Crushing student debt has delayed or denied millions of people’s big milestones like buying a house or having kids. President Biden’s plan helped relieve this burden especially for those most in need. This is devastating but we’ll keep fighting to address the student debt crisis.”
She denounced the court’s other decision Friday, calling it “absolutely disgusting to give businesses the license to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community and other vulnerable groups” ironically on the last day of Pride Month. “Pride has always been a protest,” she concluded, “and that will continue until there’s true equality.”
But Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican, praised the court for allow the Christian web designer to deny service to an LBTBQ couple, which in his view “upheld our First Amendment, defending every American’s right to think and speak for themselves.” Issa also praised the court for ruling affirmative action unconstitutional, noting that he led a similar effort in California to eliminate “compulsory quotas by color.”
Issa also voiced approval of the court’s ruling to prohibit the President from forgiving student loans, even though his own company had a federal COVID-19 debt of $151,313 forgiven shortly before shuttering the business. He praised the Court for finding that only Congress has power to forgive loans, “striking down President Biden’s purely unsupported student loan bailout.”
Religious freedom vs. gay rights
In 303 Creative LLC v.Elenis, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, stating that the First Amendment allows that “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”
A Colorado law that prohibited businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer) individuals was thus unconstitutional, according to Gorsuch, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a harsh rebuke of colleagues in her dissent, which was joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
"When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims,” Sotomayor called,noting that Friday’s ruling marked the first time in the court’s history that it granted “a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”
She cited recent attacks on LGBTQ people “heartbreaking.”
Noreen Farrell, Executive Director of Equal Rights Advocates, denounced the decision for rolling back decades of progress for LGBTQ people. She predicted that it will enable discrimination far beyond the LGBTQ community. She said the ruling “will lead to additional discrimination based on race, religion, political affiliation, and other factors.,” adding, “It is not hard to imagine the return of signs in store windows that read `NO BLACKS’ or ‘NO JEWS,’” she observe. “It is a sad day for justice.”
A report by The New Republic suggests the plaintiffs may have lacked standing and falsified evidence in the case. The publication’s research found that no same-sex couple had asked Lori Smith to design a website for them before she filed her suit in 2016. When the publication contacted the man listed in the lawsuit, he said he never submitted any such request and said the reporter’s call was the first he’d heard about it. The New Republic journalist Melissa Gira Grant concluded that Smith and her lawyers may have “invented a gay couple in need of a wedding website” for the case.
What’s next for students with loan debts? Biden proposes a new plan
The Biden administration has announced a new plan, after the Supreme Court ruled against his administration’s effort to forgive some $20 million in student debt for 43 million people, some partially, some fully. The rulings came in two cases, Department of Education v. Brown and Biden V. Nebraska. The court found that Biden’s use of the HEROES Act to cancel student debt exceeded his authority, which rests with Congress
Repayment of student loans had been halted during the pandemic, with payments slated to resume in October. On Friday, Biden made two announcements to help indebted students. First is a one-year grace period to begin making repayments, however, interest will begin accruing again starting in September. Those who fail to make payments may be found in default.
Second, Biden has proposed a new plan to utilize the Higher Education Act of 1965 to forgive some student loan debts. That law has a provision that allows the Director of Education, not Congress, to “compromise, wave or release” student loans.
It is not yet clear which student loan recipients will qualify, or how much of their debts may be forgiven under the newly proposed plan. Those with student loans are encouraged to contact their loan servicer.
In addition, the Biden administration is also considering options that could make it easier for some who are financially unable to repay their student loans to seek to have some or all of their debts discharged through bankruptcy.
The process of negotiated rulemaking that could allow the Department of Education to forgive student loans could take a year or two, Associated Press reports, since it requires a public hearing and feedback, and negotiating sessions A virtual public hearing is slated for July 18.
There is precedent, since the Education Department has used the Higher Education Act to cancel student loans in the past on a small scale. Still, this route may also face legal challenges that could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court.
Comments
LGBTQ
issa