DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Opponents of Biden's student-loan forgiveness are spotlighting another way to give borrowers debt relief
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-02 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +5 min

A challenger to Biden's student-debt relief argued he could have used the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt. "During the campaign, they were talking about doing broad-based debt relief," he said. Senator Warren and others passed resolutions urging the Secretary to use the Higher Education Act to pass debt forgiveness. She added at the end of the arguments that Biden's relief "is a pandemic-related program. So unlike the HEROES Act, the Higher Education Act would allow for the canceling of debts without the existence of an emergency like COVID-19.

☆ Biden administration lawyer may have saved student loan forgiveness plan at Supreme Court
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-01 | by ( Annie Nova | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +1 min

The government's top Supreme Court lawyer may have saved President Joe Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan from what experts considered all-but-certain defeat. Experts lobbed praise on Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the lawyer who represented the Biden administration in front of the nine justices on Tuesday. "The Biden administration now seems more likely than not to win the cases," said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. University of Chicago Illinois Law Professor Steven Schwinn agreed: "Prelogar knocked it out of the park." On Wednesday, Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman tweeted that he remains "struck by SG Elizabeth Prelogar's brilliant performance."

☆ Sonia Sotomayor pushes back on conservative SCOTUS justices who questioned the fairness of Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan, saying the US is 'not a society of unlimited resources'
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-01 | by ( Azmi Haroun | Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned efforts to gut the Biden student-loan forgiveness plan Tuesday. Sotomayor was among a few justices pushing back on common GOP arguments on the "fairness" of the program. Sotomayor was joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett in scrutinizing the cases' standing to sue. Every law has people who encompass it or people outside it," Sotomayor said, adding that "that's not an issue of fairness. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices in challenging the standing of both of the cases, but it would require the vote of an additional conservative justice to uphold Biden's debt relief plan.

☆ The Supreme Court justices deciding whether to axe Biden's student loan relief program paid an average of $42,539 to go to college. Today, they'd have to pay around $320,531.
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-01 | by ( Sarah Al-Arshani | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +8 min

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Biden's student debt relief on Tuesday. The cost of getting an undergraduate degree was significantly cheaper when they graduated than now. When Roberts graduated in 1979, it cost $21,400; in 1992 when Jackson earned her undergraduate degree, it would have cost $75,360. When Roberts graduated in 1979, it cost $21,400; in 1992 when Jackson earned her undergraduate degree, it would have cost $75,360. Student loan borrowers gathered at the Supreme Court today to tell the court that student loan relief is legal on January 2, 2023.

☆ Major Questions in the Student-Loan Forgiveness Case
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( The Editorial Board | ) www.wsj.com time to read: 1 min

Oral argument didn’t go well Tuesday for President Biden’s decree wiping out $400 billion of student-loan debt, as most Justices were skeptical of such sweeping action without Congressional assent. But give Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar points for audacity in trying to diminish a Court precedent from last year. The current Court has been vigorous in enforcing the separation of powers when an administrative agency tries to hang an expansive new program on a tiny peg of legislative authorization. This has become known as the “major questions doctrine,” which the Court fortified in last year’s landmark West Virginia v. EPA ruling that struck down an Obama Administration plan to re-engineer the electric grid.

☆ Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan is in jeopardy. Here are 4 major takeaways from the Supreme Court's oral arguments.
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +11 min

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Biden's student-debt relief on Tuesday. The nation's highest court heard more than four hours of oral arguments in two high-profile cases that reviewed Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in debt for federal borrowers, which lower courts temporarily paused in November. "We're talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans," Chief Justice John Roberts said, referring to the estimated costs of Biden's plan and the number of affected borrowers. Justice Elena Kagan raised a hypothetical national emergency of an earthquake and the education secretary responded by deciding to cancel student loans for those harmed. Still, even if Barrett and the court's three liberals find that the states and borrowers lack standing, they would need another conservative vote to uphold Biden's debt relief.

People rally in support of the Biden administration's student debt relief plan in front of the the U.S. Supreme Court on February 28, 2023 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court began hearing arguments Tuesday morning in the first of two cases challenging the Biden administration's plan to forgive an estimated $400 billion or more in federal student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans. President Joe Biden unveiled the plan, which would wipe out up to $20,000 in loans for certain borrowers, last year. "Do you think Congress shouldn't be surprised when half a trillion dollars gets wiped off the books?" Under that doctrine, the Supreme Court has said previously said that Congress must approve a federal agency's action on an issue of major national significance.

☆ Conservative Supreme Court justices target the fairness of Biden's student-loan forgiveness and executive overreach in their first round of questioning
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

Oral arguments on Biden's student-loan forgiveness are underway at the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch also asked Biden's team to address how the relief is fair to those who already paid off their loans. On Tuesday, the two cases that temporarily paused Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt arrived at the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing Biden's administration, took the first round of questions from the justices, and she defended Biden's use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to cancel student debt. He said that "modify" typically means "moderate change," and he questioned whether the language can also be used for broad student-loan forgiveness without Congressional approval.

☆ The fate of a post-2008 watchdog meant to protect Americans from another financial crisis is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-27 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Jason Lalljee | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

The Supreme Court will take on a lower court's decision that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding structure is unconstitutional. CFPB was set up to prevent another 2008-like financial crisis and has cracked down on big banks and the student-loan industry. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to take a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in October that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding structure is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court won't hear the case until next term, though, meaning a final decision isn't likely until the spring of 2024. Created in 2011 under former President Barack Obama, the CFPB was intended to protect Americans from another financial crisis following the 2008 recession.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday hears a dispute between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and a concrete company in Washington state that labor advocates say could weaken workers’ rights if the ruling goes against the union. The legal question is whether the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can sue the union for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike action in which it says that concrete was lost when drivers walked off the job. Business interests that are often in conflict with organized labor have in the past been heavily critical of the labor board. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled against unions in several high-profile cases in recent years. As a result of the strike, concrete hardened in the trucks and had to be broken up before it could be removed, the company says.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Meta to pursue a lawsuit alleging that an Israeli company unlawfully accessed WhatsApp servers when installing spyware on users’ devices. The lawsuit, filed in October 2019, alleges that NSO violated various laws, including the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, when it installed the “Pegasus” spyware. Meta claims that NSO unlawfully accessed WhatsApp servers earlier in 2019, enabling it to conduct surveillance of 1,400 people, including journalists and human rights activists. “Some WhatsApp users are violent criminals and terrorists who exploit the software’s encryption to avoid detection,” the company’s lawyers wrote. In fact, she noted, no foreign government has told the State Department that NSO was acting on its behalf.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to file a brief expressing the Biden administration's view on the litigation and whether the Supreme Court should take up the matter. Charter schools are publicly funded but operated separately from school boards run by local governments. The 4th Circuit ruling did not make a conclusion on the Title IX claim. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, in a decision joined by her fellow Democratic appointees on the 4th Circuit. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Both would be setbacks for the Biden administration. In another immigration-related case, the court has yet to rule on the Biden administration’s attempt to implement its immigration enforcement priorities. For Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top advocate at the court, arguing before such a conservative court is a constant uphill battle. The government similarly failed to convince the conservative majority not to expand gun rights in another major ruling issued that month. The Biden administration can point to some hard-fought victories.

☆ The Supreme Court agrees to hear a 2nd student-loan forgiveness case next year to decide millions of borrowers' fates
▼ + stars: | 2022-12-12 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a second challenge to President Joe Biden's student-debt relief. The challenge was brought by two student-loan borrowers who didn't qualify for the full amount of relief. The department took matters to the Supreme Court, asking it to make the final ruling on the legality of the debt relief. The Supreme Court earlier this month already agreed to take up a separate challenge brought by six Republican-led states that argued the loan forgiveness would hurt their states' tax revenues. The Supreme Court is expected hand down decisions in both cases by next June.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Republicans argued that North Carolina's top court usurped their authority by throwing out the map. In that context - a fight over counting ballots in Florida - Rehnquist said the U.S. Constitution limits the authority of state courts. "This court has never second-guessed state court interpretations of their own constitution," said Katyal. Thomas Wolf, an attorney at New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice, said if the Supreme Court gives itself too much leeway to intervene in state court disputes, it risks appearing politically motivated and lawless. The Supreme Court's ruling is due by the end of June.

Another state court then replaced that map with one drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wondered whether such broadly worded provisions provide proper "standards and guidelines" for state courts to apply. The Republican lawmakers argued that the state court usurped the North Carolina General Assembly's authority under that provision to regulate federal elections. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the "historical practice" that "nearly all state constitutions regulate federal elections in some way." David Thompson, arguing for the North Carolina lawmakers, said the Constitution "requires state legislatures specifically to perform the federal function of prescribing regulations for federal elections.

The position of others including Chief Justice John Roberts was harder to read, raising the possibility of a ruling less broad than the Republican state lawmakers pursuing the appeal seek. The Republican lawmakers are asking the Supreme Court to embrace a once-marginal legal theory that has gained favor among some conservatives called the "independent state legislature" doctrine. The Republican lawmakers have argued that the state court unconstitutionally usurped the North Carolina General Assembly's authority to regulate federal elections. Thompson also argued that state constitutions cannot impose substantive limits on the actions of legislatures on federal elections. A lower state court subsequently rejected the legislature's redrawn map and adopted one drawn by a bipartisan group of experts.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday delayed a decision on whether to grant President Joe Biden's bid to implement his student loan forgiveness plan, announcing instead that it will hear full oral arguments on an expedited basis. In a brief order, the court said it would hear arguments in February with a decision soon to follow. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday refused to lift that hold, meaning that the administration could soon appeal that case to the Supreme Court too. A federal judge had ruled that the states did not have legal standing to pursue the lawsuit, but the appeals court disagreed, focusing on a Missouri agency that services federal student loans. The overall program is anticipated to help more than 40 million borrowers, the administration has said.

REUTERS/Lucy NicholsonWASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday struggled over a bid by President Joe Biden's administration to implement guidelines - challenged by two conservative-leaning states - shifting immigration enforcement toward countering public safety threats. The justices voted 5-4 vote in July not to block Tipton's ruling halting the guidelines, announced last year by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. When the Supreme Court also declined to stay Tipton's ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. Prelogar called the states' claims of indirect harms insufficient to allow them to sue and urged the Supreme Court to limit the ability of states more generally to challenge federal policies in court. Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston and Andrew Chung in Washington; Editing by Will DunhamOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The court on a 5-4 vote declined in July to put U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton's ruling hold. On Tuesday, some of the conservative justices who were in the majority in that decision signaled that they were likely to rule against the administration again. Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana sued to block the guidelines after Republican-led legal challenges successfully thwarted other Biden administration attempts to ease enforcement. When the Supreme Court declined to stay Tipton's ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. Prelogar called those indirect harms insufficient and urged the Supreme Court to limit the ability of states more generally to challenge federal policies.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Biden administration's effort to revive a policy that set immigration enforcement priorities by focusing on public safety threats. The administration is seeking to overturn a Texas-based federal judge's ruling in June that blocked the policy nationwide. Biden administration lawyers argue that the president has broad discretion to set enforcement priorities. A third question concerns whether the judge had the authority to block the policy even if it is unlawful. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in July to reject the Biden administration's request to immediately restore the policy but agreed to hear oral arguments.

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks about student loan debt at the White House on Aug. 24, 2022 in Washington, DC. The Biden administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to reinstate its federal student loan program after a federal appeals court issued a nationwide injunction against the plan. The administration's request, which was previewed in another court filing Thursday, blasted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit for blocking the debt relief plan. And if the Supreme Court accepts the administration's appeal, if could "set this case for expedited briefing and argument this Term," she wrote. The judge ruled that while the states raised "important and significant challenges to the debt relief plan," they ultimately lacked legal standing to pursue the case.

☆ Biden's administration just asked the Supreme Court to reinstate its student-loan forgiveness plan to 'avoid prolonging this uncertainty for the millions of affected borrowers'
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-18 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

The Biden administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to revive its student-debt relief plan. It comes after a lower federal court ruled on Monday to keep the relief paused. The Biden administration also told the Supreme Court that the appeal can be considered a formal petition for a full briefing on the dispute "to avoid prolonging this uncertainty for the millions of affected borrowers," Prelogar wrote. Since Biden announced the one-time debt cancellation in August, a number of conservative lawsuits have attempted to block the debt relief. Given the lower courts' rulings blocking the relief, it's unclear how the Supreme Court will intervene.

☆ DOJ asks Supreme Court to deny Trump's request to block House Democrats from getting his tax records
▼ + stars: | 2022-11-10 | by ( Https | Media-Cldnry.S-Nbcnews.Com Image Upload Newscms Rebecca-Shabad-Circle-Byline-Template.Jpg | Rebecca Shabad | ) www.nbcnews.com time to read: +3 min

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice and the House Ways and Means Committee asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to reject former President Donald Trump's request to block the panel from accessing his tax records. Earlier this month, Chief Justice John Roberts Chief temporarily blocked the Ways and Means panel from accessing Trump's tax records. Roberts said the case would remain on hold until the court acts and asked the committee to file a response to Trump’s request by Thursday. After the DOJ's filing, the committee also filed a similar 52-page argument Thursday against Trump's request. “The committee’s purpose in requesting President Trump’s tax returns has nothing to do with funding or staffing issues at the IRS and everything to do with releasing the president’s tax information to the public,” the lawyers wrote in a recent court filing.

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Navajo Nation in February, saying it could sue the government for an alleged failure to carry out its duties on behalf of the tribe. The Navajo Nation can access water from other sources, including the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, but the tribe says that is not enough. Many tribal members do not have access to running water and rely on wells and other localized water sources. In separate litigation the tribe has fought for access to the Little Colorado River, another tributary of the Colorado River. “Nothing in the supposed sources the court of appeals cited imposes any specific and affirmative duties on the federal government on behalf of the Navajo Nation with respect to the water of the Colorado River,” Prelogar wrote.

Search resuls for: "prelogar"

25 mentions found