Constitution, the Supreme Court ruling said. The schools’ admission programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points,” which cannot be reconciled with guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from the day before that dumped race as an admission criterion used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Kagan was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.” In giving those States a forum – in adjudicating their complaint – the Court forgets its proper role. The six states “are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. An injury in fact is required under the Constitution for a plaintiff to have standing to challenge a government action, the dissenting opinion said. She argued the Supreme Court overreached in its ruling because the six states that challenged the debt forgiveness had no personal stake or injury by the federal policy to wipe out the student loan debt. Department of Education secretaries under two different presidents used their legal authority first to suspend student loan payments, then to cancel the debt. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Elana Kagan said two different U.S. In a concurring opinion, Barrett examined the “major questions doctrine” and consideration of context of the law. Those changes were “minor and had limited effect” before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the law “does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal,” the ruling said. Department of Education secretary “to make modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions, not transform them,” the majority ruling said. The Supreme Court majority ruled the program would harm the state of Missouri through that state’s Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a public corporation that holds and services student loans.īased on the HEROES Act, federal law allows the U.S. Anyone earning less than $125,000 in 2020 or 2021 would have up to $10,000 forgiven, and those who received Pell Grants would qualify for up to $20,000 in debt forgiveness. The financial hardships of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a number of federal measures to bolster the economy, including the loan forgiveness program through the U.S. “Reducing physician indebtedness could help promote diversity within medicine and contribute to a reduction in the shortage of physicians,” the AMA analysis said.ĪAMC generally praised the plan. Median debt for physician graduates is about $200,000, AMA said, citing the AAMC figures. In August last year, the American Medical Association (AMA) noted “physicians in every specialty earn well over the $125,000 per year individual income threshold.” But some physicians with a spouse earning little or now income might qualify for up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness.Ĭiting a report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), AMA said some residents and fellows would qualify based on salary levels, “but it might not make a sizable dent for many borrowers,” an AMA analysis said. It was unclear exactly what the effect would be for resident and fellow physicians. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A.
We agree," said the ruling by Chief Justice John G. Six states sued, arguing the federal Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003 “does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. That action would have canceled about $430 billion in debt for 43 million borrowers. In a 6-3 ruling, the High Court on June 30 sustained challenges to President Joe Biden’s plan to discharge up to $20,000 in student debt for those making less than $125,000 a year in 2020 or 2021. A sweeping plan to forgive student loan debt is off the table for now, according to a ruling by the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
