SCOTUS opinions [6-30-23]

scotusblog ^ | 6/30/23 | scotusblog staff

[CFW]

SCOTUS is scheduled to release the final three opinions for the October 2022 term today at 10:00 a.m. I'll post information as to those decisions and a link to the opinions as soon as they are made available.

The three remaining cases are the two student loan forgiveness cases and the 303 Creative First Amendment case. Below is the issues to be decided on this cases as compiled by Amy Howe (attorney at scotusblog). Just a reminder, scotusblog is a website maintained by court-watchers and is not affiliated with the Court itself.

303 Creative v. Elenis (argued Dec. 5, 2022): In this case, the justices are grappling with the tension between legal protections for LGBTQ people and the rights of business owners who are opposed to same-sex marriage. Lorie Smith, a Colorado website designer, is a devout Christian who believes that marriage is limited to unions between heterosexual couples only. She wants to expand her business to include wedding websites, but does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. She seeks a declaration that Colorado cannot enforce its anti-discrimination law against her. [Amy's opinion: Only Justice Neil Gorsuch has not yet written an opinion for the court’s December argument session, so he is the most likely author.]

[CFW]

Biden v. Nebraska (argued Feb. 28, 2023): One of two challenges to the Biden administration’s student-debt relief plan, this case was filed by six states with Republican attorneys general. The debt relief plan relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the Secretary of Education the power to respond to a “national emergency” by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not “placed in a worse position financially” as a result of the emergency. The states contend that the HEROES Act does not give the secretary of education the power to implement the debt relief program and, moreover, that the program violates the laws governing federal agencies. Before the justices can consider those questions, however, they must decide whether the states have a legal right to sue at all. The states’ primary argument is that one of the challengers, Missouri, controls one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the country. If the program is allowed to go forward, the states say, it could cost the agency as much as $44 million each year. The student loan cases are the only cases from the court’s February argument session that have not yet been decided. [Amy's opnion: However, there are six justices who have not yet written for the court’s February session – Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – so one (or two) of those justices is likely writing in the student loan cases.]

Department of Education v. Brown (argued Feb. 28, 2023): The second challenge to the debt relief program comes from two individual student-loan borrowers. One is not eligible for any relief under the Biden plan because she does not have any federal student loans, while the other cannot obtain the full $20,000 in relief available to some borrowers under the Biden plan. They too question the Biden administration’s reliance on the HEROES Act, but they too must first overcome questions about their right to sue.

[CFW]

We have the first opinion and it is by Justice Gorsuch. The decision is regarding 303 Creative.

Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson.

The Court holds that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

A link to the opinion is here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

[Sacajaweau]

Excellent

[CFW]

From the Gorsuch decision: “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”

From the Sotomayor dissent: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

To be clear, the court rules for Lorie Smith, the website designer.

[SauronOfMordor]

Trump has been the gift that keeps on giving.

[Sacajaweau]

Why are they a protected class...It’s exclusionary by its very nature.

[Magnum44]

No soup for you!!!

[CFW]

“Excellent”.

---

It is an excellent decision. I’m worried now about the student loan cases. I suspect Justice Roberts has the decision and he is most likely to “split the baby” in order to give both sides something to hang their hat on. I hope I’m wrong.

At the moment Gorsuch and Sotomayor are both reading their opinions from the bench, so it will be a few minutes before the final opinion for today is released.

[CFW]

More from the Gorsuch opinion on 303 Creative: “A ruling for the state would create an untenable choice for Smith. “If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expresssing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in remedial training, filing periodic compliance reports . . . and paying monetary fines.”

[Sacajaweau]

Darn...I have a hairdressers appt at 10:40...and I gotta get out of here...

Why should I have to pay for someone's student loan. The benefit wasn't to me.

[LS]

Thank you, thank you President Trump.

So far, this has been an A level court. Almost flawless.

[alancarp]

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

...which the 14th Amendment expressly forbids the existence of. But then that's a Constitution thing, which the wise Latina doesn't consider.

[ptsal]

bkmk

[CFW]

“Darn...I have a hairdressers appt at 10:40...and I gotta get out of here...
Why should I have to pay for someone’s student loan. The benefit wasn’t to me.”

---

Enjoy your appointment. I’ve found the hairdresser frowns on one sitting and posting on FR when they are trying to wash and cut your hair.

A larger issue on the student loans is if a President can excuse a certain group of people from paying their student loan debt, then is he allowed to “forgive” any and all other debts that are owed the federal government? What about government back housing loans?

[NautiNurse]

I’m thinking they are waiting to release the final opinions until the last USSC justice has left town for the summer.

[cowboyusa]

Enough Sandra!

[NautiNurse]

For these reasons, respondents lack standing, and we therefore vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. By vacating the District Court’s judgment, we obviate the need to grant the interim relief the Department requests in its application in No. 22A489. We therefore deny the application as moot.

[CFW]

We now have the first student loan case, Dept of Education v. Brown.

The opinion is from Justice Alito.

Unanimous — no standing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf

[CFW]

And we have the second student loan case by Chief Justice Roberts.

The vote is 6-3. Kagan dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson (Surprise, surprise!)

The court agrees with the states that the HEROES Act does not authorize the debt forgiveness plan.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

[CFW]

To be clear, the court has struck down the Biden administration debt-forgiveness program.