![]() What Republicans got: Democrats agreed to essentially static funding for non-defense programs, a far cry from the 7 percent increase in President Joe Biden’s budget request.Ĭonsolation for Democrats: They got Republicans to budge from their demands for substantial spending cuts. But Congress doesn’t actually have to abide by those totals. The bill includes funding levels for four more years beyond that. A year later, those funding ceilings would increase by less than 1 percent. ![]() This information suggests that the plaintiffs’ claim for standing, already widely acknowledged as extravagant, is even weaker than previously considered, if not completely baseless.What the deal does: This fight was ostensibly about the national debt - and it produced a deal that locks in two years of caps on federal spending.įor the fiscal year that kicks off in October, overall discretionary funding for non-defense programs would stay about the same as today’s total, while defense funding would get about a 3 percent bump. However, data shows that MOHELA’s bottom line would actually improve after millions of cancellations are processed. In their eyes, this is enough reasoning to unilaterally prevent 43 million borrowers from obtaining student debt relief. The plaintiffs’ case rests on the idea that MOHELA-and therefore the state of Missouri-would be financially harmed by student debt cancellation. As a result, the Supreme Court risks making a ruling affecting millions of people’s lives without essential, accurate information. Instead, rigorous and factual review has been incumbent on the efforts of citizen-researchers like ourselves, who rely on basic Freedom of Information prerogatives to complete an analysis that would otherwise have been taken up by legal research teams. This means that the Republican attorneys general trying to stop student debt cancellation for 43 million borrowers have at no point been obliged to verify the basic facts of this case. However, instead of being heard by the Eighth Circuit, which would have forced the plaintiffs to verify the factual basis of their claims, this case skipped directly to the Supreme Court. Bush-appointed district court judge dismissed the lawsuit against student debt relief, the Eighth Circuit issued a national injunction, effectively stopping the administration from canceling any student debt until the case is resolved. It’s considered emblematic of the rise of the “shadow docket,” a collection of orders and decisions the court issues without full briefing or explanation ( Baude 2015 Vladeck 2019). The frequent issuance of certiorari in the past few years has troubling implications for the Supreme Court’s exercise of power. Rather, it was heard as part of the Supreme Court’s granting of “certiorari before judgment” ( Bouie 2022)-that is, taking on a case before lower courts have issued final judgments, making it less likely that “the factual and legal issues have been resolved to the maximum extent possible” ( Vladeck 2022). The lawsuit did not go through the normal procedure. ![]() Nebraska, the Supreme Court is deciding the fate of student debt relief, and the bottom line of a student loan servicer, the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA), is being directly counterposed to millions of borrowers’ financial survival. However, last fall, six Republican attorneys general sued to stop student debt cancellation, claiming that canceling debt would cause entities in their state to lose money. Over 43 million borrowers are poised to benefit from the president’s student debt relief plan. President Biden invoked the 2003 HEROES Act to issue this plan, with the purpose of making sure that student debtors are not in a worse position financially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Student debtors who received Pell Grants are eligible for an additional $10,000 of relief. In August 2022, President Biden announced his plan to cancel up to $10,000 of student debt for those who make less than $125,000. Introduction: Hasty, Untransparent Legal Process Undermines Factual Review of Standing Claims
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |