The Supreme Court‘s fall 2022-2023 term is only halfway over, and already the justices have heard arguments in potentially landmark cases, including ones that could drastically alter college admissions policies and affirm First Amendment rights.
But other challenges over immigration policies and state election maps are also on the table, along with a coming battle over the Biden administration’s plans to provide financial relief to millions of student loan borrowers.
While the justices won’t decide any of these matters until later in 2023, the 6-3 Republican-appointed supermajority on the high court can provide some context clues, based on prior rulings, as to where the nine-member court could land on a number of issues before them.
SUPREME COURT SETS CRITICAL DATE FOR FATE OF STUDENT LOAN CANCELLATION FOR MILLIONS
The following is a preview of some of the biggest decisions coming in 2023 and what we know about the initial response from the justices.
Biden’s student debt cancellation
The Supreme Court released its February argument calendar on Dec. 19, revealing the justices will consider two major challenges to the Biden administration plan to forgive millions of borrowers’ student debt on Feb. 28.
Earlier in December, the justices also decided to take up another loan-related challenge in Department of Education v. Brown, in which two plaintiffs argued the Education Department wrongly did not offer a public comment period for the forgiveness plan. The first case to be argued, Biden v. Nebraska, surrounds six Republican-led states’ claims that President Joe Biden‘s plan violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The plan, which could cost an estimated $400 billion, aims to forgive $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Meanwhile, Pell Grant recipients would receive an additional $10,000 in debt forgiveness.
<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1671657122920,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1671657122920,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_71657119", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1204697"} }); ","_id":"00000185-3687-d0b1-a3f5-f79709b50000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedJustice Amy Coney Barrett previously declined to accept two separate emergency applications to hear challenges against the debt relief plan after they were rejected by lower courts for lack of standing. However, legal experts, including liberal Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, have speculated the majority of justices will “most likely dismantle” the program when it eventually rules on the dispute.
Affirmative action in university admissions
In two cases pertaining to affirmative action, a majority on the court seems poised to end racial preferences in college admissions.
Conservative legal group Students for Fair Admissions succeeded in bringing challenges against Harvard University‘s and the University of North Carolina‘s race-based admissions policies, alleging Asian American applicants at these schools had been disproportionately harmed and that these institutions should adopt “race-neutral” standards.
During the long Oct. 31 argument day that spanned over five hours, the conservative majority appeared skeptical of affirmative action policies and signaled an overturn of Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision that permits colleges to diversify their student populations by using race as part of a holistic assessment of applicants.
Colorado designer who refuses to make same-sex wedding websites
The Supreme Court also seems poised to continue its commitment to religious liberty after it decided last term that a Washington football coach was wrongly fired for having mid-field prayers on game day.
The oral arguments in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis signaled justices are prepared to again protect a plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. The case concerns whether the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act can force a Christian to design websites for same-sex weddings, which would contradict her deeply held beliefs.
An attorney for designer Lorie Smith told the Washington Examiner that Barrett “identified the real issue” in the case, saying Smith “serves everyone” and that her objections to creating certain websites “is about what the message is and not who the person is.”
Texas’s challenge to Biden’s immigration policies
In United States v. Texas, the latter challenged the Biden administration’s discretion on removing certain illegal immigrants in a case brought by Republican attorneys general in the Lone Star State and Louisiana, which accuse the Department of Homeland Security of sidestepping federal immigration law.
DHS established guidelines in 2021 to prioritize removal of illegal immigrants who are deemed a danger to national security or public safety. The states argue that the administration’s policy is an abuse of discretion and forced them to spend more tax dollars to account for a historic influx of immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The justices spent most of the Nov. 29 oral argument period grappling with two possible outcomes over the case that would not involve weighing in on the merits of the guidelines themselves.
One possible approach could be to decide that a lower court erred in vacating the guidelines since federal immigration law places limits on courts’ ability to intervene. Another possibility could be to find that the states didn’t have the standing to bring the case or haven’t provided sufficient proof of being harmed.
Voting and redistricting disputes that will shape future elections
In the Oct. 4 arguments over Merrill v. Milligan, justices debated whether Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.
The case arose after Alabama Republicans asked the justices to block a lower court ruling that found Alabama’s new voting districts likely run afoul of the Voting Rights Act.
The court’s response did not signal a clear outcome, but the justices voted 5-4 in a February emergency ruling for the Alabama GOP, allowing lawmakers to implement their initial plan for the midterm elections and setting a date to hear arguments in the case this October.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal bloc’s dissent in the February decision, which allowed Alabama’s map to take effect, though he has previously voted to limit the reach of the Voting Rights Act. A ruling in the case is expected before the end of the high court’s term in June.
Moore v. Harper surrounds a challenge by North Carolina Republican lawmakers who sued after the state Supreme Court said the latest congressional and state legislature maps were “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.”
A broad ruling favoring the GOP lawmakers’ argument could require a separate set of rules for federal and state elections on the same ballot and could prompt new efforts to redraw congressional districts to create greater partisan advantages.
However, the majority of justices appeared on track to find a middle ground over the dispute when they heard arguments on Dec. 7.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
University of Iowa College of Law professor Derek Muller told the Washington Examiner that despite the nearly three-hour arguments, it remains “unclear what the Supreme Court will do.”
But Muller noted, “If the legislature wins, it will be a narrow set of circumstances when state courts cannot independently check a state legislature in federal elections.”
