Global Courant 2023-05-07 17:00:26
The Supreme Court is set to make decisions every Monday until the summer after hearing arguments in several high-profile and hot-topic cases.
Here’s a recap of six of the most highly anticipated Supreme Court opinions this summer:
BIDEN’S STUDENT LOAN HANDOUT: Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown
Long after declaring the COVID-19 pandemic “over,” the Biden administration fought to sustain one pandemic response: the student loan relief program that would forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in borrower debt.
A coalition of six GOP-led states sued the government to block its debt cancellation plan, calling it an executive branch that overreaches without any clear congressional mandate.
LEFT-WING PROMOTERS RETURN TO COURT COURT JUSTICES WHILE DEMOCRATS DO CLARENCE THOMAS
Student loan borrowers hold a rally in front of the White House to celebrate President Biden canceling student debt. The Biden administration has already quietly canceled billions in student loan debt. (Paul Morigi/Getty Images for We the 45 Million)
During more than three hours of pleading, an ideological divide became apparent over the limits of the executive branch during the health crisis and whether the White House was properly implementing its debt cancellation plan.
While tough questions alone aren’t a clear sign of how the justices might rule, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority appeared skeptical of the Biden plan and suggested he may have overreached his executive power.
CONFIRMING ACTION: Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina And Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
The court heard two cases last fall about how colleges and universities look at race when making admissions decisions.
For decades, schools have been able to use affirmative action to give preferences to applicants from underrepresented minorities on the grounds that it promotes the importance of diversity on campus. However, Students for Fair Admissions alleges that Harvard University and University of North Carolina policies discriminate against applicants who do not belong to such minority groups based on their race. Specifically, the group alleges that Asian Americans suffer from both schools’ practices and that white applicants are also disadvantaged by UNCs.
Both cases address the question of whether the court should overrule its precedent in 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, which states that colleges and universities can view race as a diverse student body. The court decided to treat the cases separately because UNC is a public school and Harvard is private, so legal issues are not quite identical.
In the UNC case, the court had to consider whether the school had acted correctly in rejecting a race-neutral alternative. The Harvard case looked at whether the school had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian Americans with its policies.
SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES CASE THAT MAY EXPOSE THE POWER OF FEDERAL REGULATORS
WORKPLACE SPEECH/LGBTQ+ RIGHTS: 303 Creative LLC v Elenis
Lorie Smith is a business owner who says she puts her Christian faith above financial gain. But her efforts to manage both have brought Smith into conflict with Colorado officials over the limits of workplace speech.
The question is whether she can refuse to create a website for a same-sex marriage, despite a state’s “public housing” law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
A 2016 Vanity Fair cover featuring Andy Warhol’s recreated image and a 1981 Lynn Goldsmith photo of Prince (Source: court documents)
While the basis for Smith’s legal challenge stems from her religious beliefs, the judges examined free-speech issues in a state law that Smith said would force speech by forcing her to create sites she doesn’t want that would prohibit the posting of the statement would forbid her religious views.
COPYRIGHT/FAIR USE – LEATHER: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
In a case that will decide whether artist Andy Warhol violated copyright laws when he based a series of paintings by pop icon Prince on photographs he didn’t own, the judges could make significant changes to artists’ rights in media, from illustration to songwriting .
The question before the Supreme Court is whether the “fair use” doctrine of the Copyright Act protects Warhol, who used images of Prince taken by famed photographer Lynn Goldsmith to create new works of art without her credit or permission.
BIG TECH & SECTION 230: Twitter, Inc. v Taamneh and Gonzalez v Google LLC
Access to free speech on the internet as we know it may soon be dramatically changed depending on how the judges weigh in cases where social media companies are held liable for content posted by third-party providers.
One case is about the scope of the legal protections in the nearly 30-year-old Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and whether they apply to the algorithms digital service providers like Google and YouTube use to recommend which videos and websites to watch. should be displayed users.
Section 230 gives social media companies broad legal immunity, largely preventing lawsuits over the content of their sites.
A separate case against Twitter concerns liability under Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and whether hosting terrorist content online can constitute “complicity” under federal civil law, regardless of the liability protections in Section 230.
The home of 94-year-old grandmother Geraldine Tyler was seized by Minnesota for unpaid taxes. (Pacific legal basis)
COLLECTION CLAUSE: Tyler vs. Hennepin County
It sounds like a Big Brother nightmare: A 94-year-old grandmother’s house is foreclosed by the state for unpaid taxes, and all proceeds from the sale – far in excess of what she actually owed – go to the public treasury.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ALITO SAYS HE HAS A ‘RIGHT GOOD IDEA’ ABOUT WHO LEAKED THE DOBBS DRAFT DECISION
In a two-hour plea, a clear majority of judges on both the left and right appeared to be receptive to arguments from attorneys for Geraldine Tyler, 94, whose condominium was seized in 2015 by Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The foreclosure was made as payment for approximately $15,000 in outstanding property taxes, penalties, interest and fees. The apartment eventually sold for $40,000, and under state forfeiture laws, the county kept the excess proceeds. Minnesota is one of more than a dozen states (along with Washington, DC) to allow the practice.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The case could have nationwide ramifications for the state’s power to order homeowners to pay or risk losing everything.
The Supreme Court will issue its advice on Monday at 10 a.m
Bill Mears, Shannon Bream and Ronn Blitzer of Fox News contributed to this report.
Brianna Herlihy is a political writer for Fox News Digital.
