U.S. Supreme Court Rebukes Biden and More
July 6, 2023 | Washington, D.C.
by Eagle Forum Executive Director, Tabitha Walter
June is a busy month for the U.S. Supreme Court as it is traditionally the time the most controversial decisions from the current term are handed down before the Court adjourns until the new term begins in October. We had our eye on a handful of cases regarding freedom of speech, affirmative action, President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, and an Alabama redistricting case. The decisions shed light on some of the high-stakes issues that we face every day. Here are brief summaries of the hottest cases we’ve been watching this term.
Freedom of Speech
Colorado web designer Lorie Smith wanted to expand her business to include wedding websites, but was worried that if she did, the state’s anti-discrimination law (the one that was used against Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop) would be used to compel her to “convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.”
In this case, she asserted, “the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects her from being compelled to speak what she does not believe.” With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, Smith sued the state of Colorado to clarify this right. After nearly seven years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Smith. Justice Neil Gorsuch asserted in the majority opinion:
In this case, 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…But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong…The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed.
Affirmative Action
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
The organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard over their race-based admissions process. SFFA claimed that Harvard discriminated against Asian Americans and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This placed decades of affirmative action on the chopping block. The 6-3 ruling struck down affirmative action in college admissions. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion clarified that colleges could consider race in admissions essays as it pertains to instances of overcoming adversity or demonstrating leadership skills but it cannot be weighed alone. In conclusion, he stated:
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress took vital steps toward realizing the promise of equality under the law. As important as those initial efforts were, much work remained to be done — and much remains today. But by any measure, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stands as a landmark on this journey and one of the Nation’s great triumphs. We have no right to make a blank sheet of any of its provisions. And when we look to the clear and powerful command Congress set forth in that law, these cases all but resolve themselves. Under Title VI, it is never permissible “‘to say “yes” to one person . . . but to say “no” to another person’” even in part “‘because of the color of his skin.’”
Student Loan Cancelation Program
Department of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska
Two cases against Biden’s student loan cancelation program were resolved last week. The first, Department of Education v. Brown, involved two federal loan borrowers who claimed to have not qualified for the forgiveness program causing them undue suffering. However, this case was unanimously vacated by the Court due to lack of proof of injury, also known in legalese as lack of standing.
The second case, Biden v. Nebraska, challenged Biden’s use of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students “HEROES” Act to implement the cancelation of $430 billion in loans without the approval of Congress. A majority of the Court (6-3) agreed with this challenge. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the Secretary of Education was attempting to rewrite the law and therefore overstep the Executive Branch’s authority. He stated:
This leads the Court to conclude that ‘[t]he basic and consequential tradeoffs’ inherent in a mass debt cancellation program ‘are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself… In such circumstances, we have required the Secretary to “point to ‘clear congressional authorization’” to justify the challenged program.
Racial Gerrymandering
Not all the decisions handed down in June were as understandable or clarifying of basic rights as those above. In early June, by a vote of 5-4 with Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh joining the more liberal justices, the Court held that the districting plan adopted by Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act because it created only one majority-minority district. The Supreme Court has grappled with the issue of racial gerrymandering in the past with the Chief Justice previously stating that he could find no “judicially discernible and manageable” standards for the Court to police the practice.
In this case, he not only failed to lay out such standards but further muddied the waters. According to the Wall Street Journal, this decision will “send Alabama back to the drawing board to create a second black-majority U.S. House district. Yet other states [such as NC and GA] have tried that approach, only to be admonished by the Court that their maps were drawn with too much emphasis on race.” Justice Clarence Thomas in his brilliant dissent blasted the majority’s opinion:
We place States in the impossible position of having to weigh just how much racial sorting is necessary . . . Worst of all, by making it clear that there are political dividends to be gained in the discovery of new ways to sort voters along racial lines, we prolong immeasurably the day when the ‘sordid business’ of ‘divvying us up by race’ is no more.
Alabama will now hold a special legislative session to deal with this issue and attempt to satisfy this ambiguous racial standard.
The Left’s Reaction
The Left is outraged at every case that doesn’t uphold their interpretation of the Constitution and fuels their hatred for the makeup of the Court. U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) immediately introduced legislation to institute eighteen-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. Other Members of Congress, along with liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL, are pushing for expanding the number of justices on the Court despite a finding of President Biden’s Commission on the Supreme Court finding “profound disagreement” on whether Congress should expand the court beyond its current nine seats. Eagle Forum is supporting the Keep Nine Amendment that would preserve a nine-member Supreme Court.
Biden Administration’s Reaction
In response to the Court’s rebuke of his unconstitutional plan to wipe out student loan debt, the Biden Administration has already considered other illegal ways to move forward with this plan to rob Peter (the taxpayers) to pay Paul (the students who voluntarily took out loans but whose votes the liberals are attempting to buy with this scheme).
The Department of Education has launched a rulemaking process to try this loan forgiveness by regulation. Details are still emerging, and you can be assured we are tracking their moves and will inform you of any nefarious plans. Join Eagle Forum today to be a part of the solution!
Eagle Forum’s Response
With the exception of the Alabama redistricting case, Eagle Forum is pleased with the decisions outlined above and grateful for the sound constitutional reasoning of many of the current justices.