Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Barrett rejects appeal over Biden student debt plan
The Associated Press ^ | October 20, 2022

Posted on 10/20/2022 2:16:11 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday rejected an appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the Biden administration’s student debt cancellation program.

Barrett did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association, which also has lost rounds in lower federal courts. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order to put the program on hold because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

Barrett oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states. She acted on her own, without involving the rest of the court.

U.S. District Judge William Griesbach had earlier dismissed the group’s lawsuit, finding they didn’t have the legal right, or standing, to bring the case. A panel of appellate judges refused to step in with an emergency order.

(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: barrett; loan; scotus; standing; student
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: DannyTN

If taxpayers don’t have standing to bring this up about how taxes are doled out illegally by the executive branch,

Theres no reason to remain a taxpayer.


21 posted on 10/20/2022 2:36:39 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Most Freepers seem to hate lawyers and don’t want them near the GOP


22 posted on 10/20/2022 2:38:08 PM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Taxpayers have never had standing to generally object to expenditures. The rules of standing require that you have a particularized injury from the challenged action, more specific than the atomized impact on the general revenue taxpayer.

As Ted Cruz, no stranger to Supreme Court litigation, observed - this one is going to have a tough time with standing.

Justice Barrett was applying the consistent standing doctrine, and this says nothing at all about the merits of the arguments that would have been presented.

I think it falls on separation of powers - but getting there will be a challenge.


23 posted on 10/20/2022 2:38:18 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Re: "I guess taxpayers don't have standing..."

Not surprised.

Conservative residents of the 50 states also do not have standing to sue after obvious voter fraud in their own states.

I wonder if Democrat residents have standing if their states vote to secede from the former United States of America?

24 posted on 10/20/2022 2:42:12 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Are there NO LAWYERS on the right who can actually figure out who has standing?

25 posted on 10/20/2022 2:45:12 PM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Are there NO LAWYERS on the right who can actually figure out who has standing?

Unfortunately, "standing" is a relatively recent legal development. It is best understand as the judge doesn't want to hear the case. Different judges use it differently depending on their personal perspective. Until people understand that it's just so much judicial BS, they will continue to think it has a simple solution. It doesn't.
26 posted on 10/20/2022 2:45:58 PM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

“Why didn’t they have standing, and who would have standing?”

Well the ones with standing would be those with college loans that they did not wish to be forgiven. LOL


27 posted on 10/20/2022 2:48:40 PM PDT by LeoTDB69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Are there NO LAWYERS on the right who can actually figure out who has standing?

As a lawyer on the right, I can tell you that in order to have "standing" the litigant must suffer a real harm that is distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large. In this case, the harm suffered by the Wisconsin taxpayers group is no different than the harm suffered by every other taxpayer, and therefore, they lack standing to sue. This is basic to all federal litigation and has nothing to do with Rat vs. Rhino vs. Conservative.

28 posted on 10/20/2022 2:49:47 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: imabadboy99
She’s a real peach.

The law doesn't work that way. The Supreme Court almost always lets the lower courts handle its cases. The law doesn't move quickly and never has.

29 posted on 10/20/2022 2:49:53 PM PDT by rexthecat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: imabadboy99

The language in “Flast v Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 may provide some insight as to why Justice Barrett made the correct but unfortunate decision:

The nexus demanded of federal taxpayers has two aspects to it. First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked. Thus, a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution. It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. This requirement is consistent with the limitation imposed upon state-taxpayer standing in federal courts in Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 (1952). Secondly, the taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Under this requirement, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power, and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8. When both nexuses are established, the litigant will have shown a taxpayer’s stake in the outcome of the controversy, and will be a proper and appropriate party to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction.

Page 392 U. S. 103

Also see, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)


30 posted on 10/20/2022 2:49:54 PM PDT by thegagline (Sic semper tyrannis )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Re: "If taxpayers don't have standing to bring this up about how taxes are doled out illegally by the Executive branch, there is no reason to remain a taxpayer."

Careful...

Thinking for yourself is definitely a federal offense!

31 posted on 10/20/2022 2:50:13 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Another Bushie strikes again.


32 posted on 10/20/2022 2:55:18 PM PDT by Organic Panic (Democrats. Memories as short as Joe Biden's eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

The action complained about is an Executive Order by FJB. Taxpayers do not have standing. The only persons with standing to challenge an EO are members of congress, and yes, it would be about separation of powers. Mainly that FJB usurped federal legislative power by constructively “spending” federal money. The only branch that can spend money is congress.


33 posted on 10/20/2022 2:55:31 PM PDT by jpp113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: quikstrike98

Yes, they are able & Yes, they are able. Congress persons are the ONLY ones with standing to challenge an Executive Order.


34 posted on 10/20/2022 2:57:00 PM PDT by jpp113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: es345st
"Right, why would expect the SC to stop a violation of the law."

Well the Hero's Act suggests otherwise. GWB the Shrub and a Republican Congress screwed the pooch, as always.

35 posted on 10/20/2022 2:57:13 PM PDT by buckalfa (Kilroy was here, but who was he?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thegagline
Your citation explicitly states "exercises of congressional power."

The decision in question regards an arbitrary federal Executive action.

36 posted on 10/20/2022 3:00:59 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

“As a lawyer on the right, I can tell you that in order to have “standing” the litigant must suffer a real harm that is distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large. In this case, the harm suffered by the Wisconsin taxpayers group is no different than the harm suffered by every other taxpayer, and therefore, they lack standing to sue. This is basic to all federal litigation and has nothing to do with Rat vs. Rhino vs. Conservative.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Thank you for that, really. No sarcasm here.

So, in your opinion, who WOULD have standing, and how should they go about using the courts to reverse this?


37 posted on 10/20/2022 3:02:35 PM PDT by Eccl 10:2 (Prov 3:5 --- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

“Now there is a PRECEDENT….NOT president. €¥<*%=!!!!


38 posted on 10/20/2022 3:03:25 PM PDT by szweig (HYHEY Have You Had Enough Yet??!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I wonder if once the republicans get in they can claw the money back.


39 posted on 10/20/2022 3:05:20 PM PDT by Dennis M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeoTDB69
"Well the ones with standing would be those with college loans that they did not wish to be forgiven. LOL"

LOL That sounds about right.

I think surely the 6 states that are suing must have standing.

Congress would have standing but is controlled by Democrats.

40 posted on 10/20/2022 3:06:48 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson