White House cancels $9 billion in student debt for 125,000 Americans
The White House announced Wednesday another round of student loan debt forgiveness months after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a broader effort by President Joe Biden to cancel some student loan debts. Biden said that an additional 125,000 Americans were approved for $9 billion in debt relief through fixes made to income-driven repayment and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and by canceling debt for borrowers with total and permanent disabilities. The administration’s plan provides $5.2 billion in additional debt relief for 53,000 borrowers under Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs, almost $2.8 billion in new debt relief for nearly 51,000 borrowers through fixes to income-driven repayment and $1.2 billion for nearly 22,000 borrowers who have a total or permanent disability who have been identified and approved for discharge through a data match with the Social Security Administration, according to the White House. In July, the Department of Education announced that $39 billion in federal student loan debt for about 800,000 borrowers would be discharged. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Biden’s plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in debt through the HEROES Act. That plan would have forgiven $10,000 per qualifying borrower and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. In Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled the administration’s plan to cancel $10,000 in loan debt for people making up to $125,000 or married couples making up to $250,000 exceeded the scope of the 2003 HEROES Act. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the 6-3 ruling that the 20-year-old federal law allows “modest adjustments” in loan forgiveness programs but not sweeping changes that “transform them.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Alabama will challenge decision in redistricting case
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office announced in a statement late on Tuesday that the state will appeal Tuesday’s ruling by the federal three-judge panel rejecting the Alabama Legislature’s latest congressional redistricting map. Marshall’s office said, “While we are disappointed in (Tuesday’s) decision, we strongly believe that the legislature’s map complies with the Voting Rights Act and the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.’ In filed papers with the Court, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen disclosed an intent to appeal the three-judge panel decision. The Legislature passed a new congressional redistricting map in a July special session. In June, the state was ordered to create a map with two majority-minority districts or something close to it by the three-judge panel. The Republican supermajority of the Alabama Legislature ignored the instructions of the court order and instead just increased the percentage of Black Voters in Alabama’s Second Congressional District from 30% to 39.9% and called it an “opportunity district.” The three-judge panel wrote that that partisan new map still violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and ordered a court-appointed special master to draw Alabama’s new congressional district lines. “We are deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the state readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” the Judges wrote in their order on Tuesday. The state disagrees and will appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Legislators close to the redistricting told Alabama Today that appealing this case to the Supreme Court was always the plan and that they expected the three-judge panel would find against the state’s map. Marshall himself, in recent remarks to the Alabama Republican Party Executive Committee in Montgomery, expressed skepticism that the three-judge panel would find in favor of the state but that the state would appeal. The same three-judge panel ruled in 2022 that Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting map also violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered the state Legislature to draw a new map. Instead, the state defied the Court by refusing to draw a new map. The state appealed then to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially stayed the three-judge panel order of a new map and allowed the 2022 congressional elections to proceed under the 2021 map. The Supreme Court, however, eventually ruled in June in favor of the civil rights groups suing the state and upheld the three-judge panel’s 2022 preliminary ruling that the state had likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme ruled 5 to 4 that the 2021 congressional redistricting map likely does violate the Voting Rights Act and referred the case back to the three-judge panel. The majority decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and supported by the three liberal justices. Brett Kavanaugh was the deciding vote. The state is staking its case on Kavanaugh reversing himself and instead finding in favor of the State of Alabama when the state makes its case before the Court for a second time. The Supreme Court is under no obligation to even hear this case. Also at issue is whether the 2024 congressional elections will use the July map drawn by the Legislature or the new map that the three-judge panel ordered on Tuesday for a special master to draw. The special master won’t be finished with that new map until September 25. The state has said it needs to have a map in place by October 1, as major party qualifying for the election will begin next month. If the Court agrees to hear the state’s appeal, it will take months for the legal process, and the major party primaries are set for March 5. At this point, no one in the State of Alabama knows with any certainty which congressional district they live in moving forward. The state contends it cannot draw a map with two majority-minority districts that is suitably compact and doesn’t divide communities of interest. The state has argued that dividing Mobile County or putting Mobile and Baldwin Counties (the two Alabama Gulf Coast counties) in separate congressional districts is unreasonable. They also say that the Wiregrass region of southeast Alabama should not be divided. The civil rights groups suing the state argue that these concerns are secondary to the Voting Rights Act. They demand that communities of color be allowed to pick their own congressional representation. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Mid-Alabama Republican Club discusses congressional redistricting issue
On Saturday, attorney Bert Jordan briefed the influential Mid-Alabama Republican Club (MARC) on the pending federal litigation over Alabama’s disputed congressional redistricting. On Monday morning, the State of Alabama will defend a congressional redistricting plan passed by the Alabama Legislature in July’s second 2023 special session. Plaintiffs have challenged that plan as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Hoover City Councilman John Lyda is the President of MARC. “Burt Jordan has practiced law here for 43 years,” Lyda said. “His law firm, Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff, & Brandt, represents the City of Hoover, and I am very grateful for that.” Lyda said Jordan represented Perry Hooper Sr. in his disputed Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court race in 1992. He has been counsel for the Alabama Republican party. He also served as County chairman from 1995 to 1999. Jordan criticized the media coverage, particularly that of al.com in this case, as inaccurate. “I know al.com could do a better job,” he stated. “In early 2022, a U.S. District Court consisting of three judges issued an injunction because the 2021 Congressional redistricting likely violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Jordan said. “Section 5 was struck down in 2012 in a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts. John Roberts has received a lot of criticism for that decision.” Jordan explained that in 1982, the City of Mobile’s city council districts were upheld by the Supreme Court. The city had three council districts that were voted on city-wide, but no Black representative had been elected to the council, even though the city was 33% Black. The Supreme Court found that the Mobile redistricting did not violate Section 2 because there was no intent to prevent a Black person from being elected. It just hadn’t happened. Following the Mobile decision, Section 2 of the VRA was rewritten by Congress from showing intent to a results outcome. Jordan explained 27% of Alabamians are Black. The plaintiffs argue that based on the results test, then two out of the seven congressional districts should be majority Black. “Nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population,” Jordan stated. Jordan said that a key Supreme Court decision here was Thornburg v Gingles. “The Gingles factors: First, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district. Second, the minority group must show that it is politically cohesive. Third, the minority must demonstrate that the White majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it……..to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. Finally, a plaintiff who demonstrates the three preconditions must also show, under the “totality for the circumstances,” that the political process is not “equally open” to minority voters.” Jordan said that the Court ruled that the 2021 Alabama congressional redistricting was “likely a violation of section 2 of the voting rights act. That is why we are where we are today.” Jordan explained that there are three separate lawsuits challenging the 2021 congressional redistricting that have all been wrapped together into one suit. Those plaintiffs are Milligan from Montgomery, Castor from Mobile, and state Senator Bobby Singleton from Hale County. “They say that the Legislature’s remedial plan does not comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Jordan said. “It comes down to the racial composition of (Congressional) District 2. The complaint of the plaintiffs is that (the remedial congressional redistricting map passed by the Legislature in July) is not going to remedy the problem.” The Legislature increased the number of Black voters in CD2 to almost 40%. Jordan said that Milligan and the other plaintiffs will argue that “the Legislature did not produce two majority Black Districts”; thus, that violates the results test of Section 2 of the VRA. “The way the state is defending this is important,” Jordan said. “The state is defending this on the grounds that it united the Black Belt and is preserving communities of interest while minimizing the number of county splits. The counterpoint is this, as seen from Terri Sewell, is that Alabama has defied the Supreme Court.” “The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2021 redistricting likely violated Section 2,” Jordan said. “There has never been a final ruling. The state is arguing that there has never been a final judgment, only a preliminary ruling, so the burden of proof is still on Milligan, Castor, and Singleton.” “We don’t know how that will play out exactly,” in the hearing on Monday, Jordan said. “There will be a lot of legal discussion between the judges and the attorneys.” Jordan said that the VRA had been misused at times in the past for gerrymandering. “One of the ways that it was misused was in drawing bizarrely shaped districts such as North Carolina District 12 (in 1990),” Jordan said. That redistricting snaked through multiple counties in North Carolina, connecting communities of color into a majority Black district. One consequence is that it made it easier for Republicans to win the neighboring districts. The Supreme Court rejected the gerrymandered District 12, Jordan explained. Jordan said that that decision was then used as a precedent in a 1990s case that he and Ferris Stephens brought challenging what was then Alabama state board of education district 4, where Jefferson County was in a school district with just the Black neighborhood of Tuscaloosa connected by a narrow lasso. The Court overturned the school board redistricting because it violated the North Carolina District 12 decision. Jordan said that Singleton has presented a map to the Court where Jefferson County is kept as a whole but is connected with Bibb to Hale and Perry Counties in the Blackbelt. Jordan said that this is dilution and thus would not pass legal scrutiny. Jordan said that the Court has declined to eliminate partisan gerrymandering. “The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that it couldn’t resolve partisan gerrymandering because it can’t make the decision on what is too much and what is fair,” Jordan said. “There is a lot of elite thinking that partisanship is distasteful. It may be, but it may be the best thing that
Justice Brett Kavanaugh seeks to dispel the notion that the Supreme Court is partisan
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the mixed U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term as he sought Thursday to dispel notions that it is partisan, even after conservatives brought about the end of affirmative action in college admissions and struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief program. “The court is an institution of law. It’s an institution of law, not of politics, not of partisanship,” Kavanaugh said at a judicial conference in Minnesota, in the first public remarks by a justice since the court recessed for the summer late last month. The Supreme Court has been reshaped by the three justices nominated by President Donald Trump, including Kavanaugh. Although Kavanaugh sided with the conservative majorities in the affirmative action and student loan rulings, as well as last summer’s ruling overturning the nationwide right to abortion, he was also part of the mixed conservative and liberal majorities this term that backed Black voters in Alabama and preserved a federal law aimed at keeping Native American children with Native families. And the term was marked by other notable surprises, rejecting conservative positions in a North Carolina redistricting case that could have reshaped elections across the country, while backing the Biden administration in a fight over deportation priorities. “We have lived up, in my estimation, to deciding cases based on law and not based on partisan affiliation and partisanship,” Kavanaugh said. “We don’t caucus in separate rooms. We don’t meet separately. We’re not sitting on different sides of the aisle at an oral argument. … We work as a group of nine.” Speaking to an audience of judges, attorneys, and court personnel from the 8th Circuit, which stretches from Minnesota and the Dakotas south to Arkansas, Kavanaugh said he didn’t fully appreciate until he joined the court how much time the nine justices spend alone with each other. He estimated that they eat lunch together around 65 times a year. “And the rule at lunch is you can’t talk about work,” he said. “It’s a good rule. … It builds relationships and friendships, and then when we have tough cases — and we only really have tough cases — you have a reservoir of goodwill toward each of the other people.” Kavanaugh said he was warmly welcomed in his first term in 2018 by then-Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who were part of the court’s liberal wing. He also praised his working relationships with the two newest justices, conservative Amy Coney Barrett and liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kavanaugh, who was the justice most often in the majority this term in divided cases, said the Supreme Court hears 60 to 70 cases a term and that only a relative few might get most of the attention. But he said there are lots of 9-0 decisions, and there can also be a lot of 7-2 and 6-3 decisions. “All sorts of different lineups,” he said. “And so I might be working with Sonia Sotomayor on the Andy Warhol case, while we disagree on a case on the competition clause. We’re not going to let our relationship where we’re working together on one suffer just because we disagree on the other. And that’s going on with all nine of us on a daily basis.” Kavanaugh only briefly mentioned the ethics issues that have dogged some justices — including conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and the liberal Sotomayor — and potentially undermined public confidence in the court. He noted that Chief Justice John Roberts said in May that the justices were continuing to work on that as a group. “That’s accurate,” he said. “I’m not going to add anything to what the chief justice has said on that topic.” Roberts offered no specifics at the time, and the justices have not adopted an ethics code. Kavanaugh said people getting upset when the high court makes difficult decisions comes with the territory. He said the best the justices can do is try to be consistent, clearly explain their reasoning, and try to show that they actually are working as a team of nine on difficult cases instead of caucusing on a partisan basis. “You shouldn’t be in this line of work if you don’t like criticism,” he said. “Because you’re going to get it. And you’re going to get a lot of it.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
AG Steve Marshall applauds Supreme Court ruling upholding Christian web designer’s right to deny service to a gay wedding
On Friday, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall welcomed a 6 to 3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects a Denver area Christian web designer’ from having to build a website for a gay couple’s same-sex wedding in violation of her Christian principles and beliefs. 303 Creative and its owner, Lorie Smith, is a graphic artist and website designer in Colorado. Smith expanded her business into wedding website design. Smith’s deeply held Christian beliefs prohibit her from promoting same-sex weddings. Colorado’s anti-discrimination law forbids businesses from denying service to LGBTQ+ persons seeking service. Under that law, if Smith designed and promoted custom websites for opposite-sex weddings, she would have to design and promote custom websites for same-sex weddings too. Smith filed a suit claiming that the law violated her First Amendment rights to practice her religion and her free speech rights and that the Colorado law as such is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights. The lower court ruled against her. Undeterred, Smith appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which also ruled against Smith, and then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis reaffirms that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing citizens, including business owners, from speaking messages with which they disagree. In the 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision against Smith. “The Constitution and our First Amendment prevail,” Marshall said in a statement. “All Americans enjoy the right to freedom of conscience, and that freedom means the government cannot coerce anyone to speak against their deeply held beliefs,” said Attorney General Marshall. “Today’s decision confirms that state and local government are not ‘immune to the demands of the Constitution.’” In June 2022, Attorney General Marshall signed on to a 20-state amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to protect the First Amendment rights of business owners. The brief argued in support of Smith. Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit legal advocacy group that defends religious liberty, also filed an amicus brief in favor of the web designer’s right to deny service. Liberty Counsel said in a statement that the Colorado state law censors and coerces the speech of creative professionals whose religious beliefs do not conform to state-accepted beliefs. Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This is a great victory for the right of individual speech and expression. The state cannot force people to convey a government-approved message against their religious beliefs or individual choice. Film, theater, art, and other creative expression would not exist if the government could censor the message.” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The three liberal Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Kentanji Brown Jackson, dissented. “The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well-intentioned or deeply ‘misguided,’ and likely to cause ‘anguish’ or ‘incalculable grief.’ Equally, the First Amendment protects acts of expressive association,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Generally, too, the government may not compel a person to speak its own preferred messages. Nor does it matter whether the government seeks to compel a person to speak its message when he would prefer to remain silent or to force an individual to include other ideas with his own speech that he would prefer not to include. All that offends the First Amendment just the same.” “Applying these principles to this case, we align ourselves with much of the Tenth Circuit’s analysis,” Gorsuch continued. “The Tenth Circuit held that the wedding websites Ms. Smith seeks to create qualify as ‘pure speech’ under this Court’s precedents. We agree. It is a conclusion that flows directly from the parties’ stipulations. They have stipulated that Ms. Smith’s websites promise to contain ‘images, words, symbols, and other modes of expression.’ They have stipulated that every website will be her ‘original, customized’ creation. And they have stipulated that Ms. Smith will create these websites to communicate ideas—namely, to ‘celebrate and promote the couple’s wedding and unique love story’ and to ‘celebrate and promote’ what Ms. Smith understands to be a true marriage. We part ways with the Tenth Circuit only when it comes to the legal conclusions that follow. While that court thought Colorado could compel speech from Ms. Smith consistent with the Constitution, our First Amendment precedents laid out above teach otherwise.” “Nor is it any answer, as the Tenth Circuit seemed to suppose, that Ms. Smith’s services are ‘unique,’” Gorsuch continued. “In some sense, of course, her voice is unique; so is everyone’s. But that hardly means a State may coopt an individual’s voice for its own purposes.” “The First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit (such as speechwriters, artists, and website designers),” Gorsuch wrote. If anything is truly dispiriting here, it is the dissent’s failure to take seriously this Court’s enduring commitment to protecting the speech rights of all comers, no matter how controversial—or even repugnant—many may find the message at hand.” Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent. “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote. “New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.” The last day of Pride Month perhaps ironically ends with a Supreme Court ruling affirming that LGBTQ+ rights do not mean that the state can deprive other citizens of their free speech and religious liberty rights. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released a statement denouncing the decision. “This decision by the Supreme Court is a dangerous step backward, giving some businesses the power to
Supreme Court rules that Joe Biden’s executive order forgiving student loan debt unconstitutional
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Joe Biden’s controversial executive order to forgive millions of student loans exceeded the powers of the President as enumerated by the Constitution. The Biden administration had argued before the Court that it had acted lawfully as the COVID-19 global pandemic meant that the President had the unilateral right to cancel student loans as part of its emergency response. They also cited a 2003 law called the HEROES Act, passed during the Iraq War. The Court rejected the administration’s arguments in a 6-to-3 ruling Friday in Biden vs. Nebraska. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The HEROES Act allows the secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, but does not allow the secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal.” When President Biden was running for office in 2020, he promised student loan forgiveness to motivate young people to vote for him over then-incumbent President Donald Trump. Even though Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress for his first two years in power, Biden could not pass student loan forgiveness through Congress, so he opted for the legally dubious step of doing it by executive fiat. The Supreme Court, in Friday’s ruling, rejected that effort. Congresswoman Terri Sewell, a Biden loyalist, released a statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision. “Today, the Supreme Court has chosen to side with Republican state officials who would rather score political points against President Biden than help hard-working Americans being crushed by student loan debt. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement,” Rep. Sewell said. “In light of this terrible decision, I am calling on my colleagues in Congress to take action to combat the student debt crisis and make higher education more affordable for our students.” U.S. Senator Katie Britt voiced her support for the Court’s decision. “Hard work and personal responsibility are at the heart of the American Dream,” Britt said on Twitter. “As we knew all along, the Biden Administration’s student loan debt transfer scheme was unfair, unjust, and unlawful. I was proud to join @SenateGOP colleagues on an amicus brief in this important case.” Congressman Barry Moore also released a statement in support of the Supreme Court ruling. “The Supreme Court just declared Biden’s student loan giveaway unconstitutional,” Rep. Moore said on Twitter. “Huge victory for American taxpayers, who would have been forced to foot the bill of $400 billion over the next 30 years.” To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Steve Marshall says Supreme Court decision does away with all “governmentally imposed discrimination based on race”
On Thursday, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement today following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority’s opinion held that racial discrimination in university admissions violates the Constitution’s prohibition on governmental discrimination based on race. “This landmark decision makes clear ‘the core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause: doing away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race,” Marshall stated. “Ivy League appeals to diversity do not justify discriminating against prospective students based on the color of their skin.” In May 2022, Attorney General Marshall joined a coalition of 19 states supporting the challengers’ cases before the Supreme Court. The brief decried Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s discrimination against Asian-American applicants. The conservative AGs argued that racial discrimination in admissions is unnecessary to ensure applicants have a fair shot at obtaining quality higher education. The Biden Department of Justice supported both Universities in their vigorous defense of their admissions policies. Thursday’s ruling was a defeat for the Biden Administration. “Today, the Court once again walked away from decades of precedent and made — as the dissent has made clear,” said President Joe Biden. “The dissent states that today’s decision, quote, ‘rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.’ End of quote. I agree with that statement from the dissents — from the dissent.” “The Court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions,” Biden continued. “And I strongly — strongly disagree with the Court’s decision.” “We all know it: Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America,” Biden stated. “Today’s decision does not change that. It’s a simple fact. If a student has — has overcome — had to overcome adversity on their path to education, a college should recognize and value that. Our nation’s colleges and universities should be engines of expanding opportunity through upward mobility. But today, too often, that’s not the case.” Biden continued, “Colleges and universities should continue their commitment to support, retain, and graduate diverse students and classes. We can’t go backwards. You know, I know today’s Court decision is a severe disappointment to so many people, including me, but we cannot let the decision be a permanent setback for the country. We need to keep an open door of opportunities. We need to remember that diversity is our strength. We have to find a way forward. We need to remember that the promise of America is big enough for everyone to succeed.” Biden was asked by a reporter, “President Biden, the Congressional Black Caucus said the Supreme Court has “thrown into question its own legitimacy.” Is this a rogue Court?” “This is not a normal Court,” Biden responded. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Rep. Terri Sewell says Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action “ignores our history”
The U.S. Supreme Court released a pair of decisions on Thursday severely limiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions. This decision effectively ends those affirmative action programs that many colleges have used for years. The Court’s six conservative justices invalidated both Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (UNC) admissions schemes by ruling they did not comply with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. “Both 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,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” Roberts continued. “At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” “The Court today makes clear that, in the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence,” stated Justice Clarence Thomas. “Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so.” Congresswoman Terri Sewell released a statement stating her opposition to Thursday’s ruling. “For centuries, African Americans were systematically denied the opportunity to pursue a higher education and gain financial independence, leaving a painful legacy of discrimination that persists to this day,” Rep. Sewell said. “It was during my parents’ lifetime that institutions like the University of Alabama finally allowed Black students to enroll alongside their peers. For the past four decades, the Supreme Court has recognized the important role of affirmative action in breaking down educational barriers for Black students. After all, our entire nation benefits when talented students of diverse backgrounds get a fair shot at success. But with today’s extreme reversal, the Court has chosen to ignore our history and roll back our hard-fought progress. “This is another solemn reminder that progress is elusive, and every generation must fight to preserve the progress of the past and advance it,” said Sewell. The Biden administration had backed the two schools before the Court. The biggest beneficiary of this will be Asian Americans. Asians as a group have a disproportionately high percentage of high performers on standards such as grade point average, ACT scores, GRE scores, etc., so they may face discrimination in the number allowed into colleges and universities. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions and says race cannot be a factor
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down affirmative action in college admissions, forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies. The court’s conservative majority overturned admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges, respectively. Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long, universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.” Justice Clarence Thomas, the nation’s second Black justice who had long called for an end to affirmative action, wrote separately that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.” Both Thomas and Sotomayor took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinions aloud in the courtroom. In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — the court’s first Black female justice — called the decision “truly a tragedy for us all.” The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. Jackson sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board there. The Supreme Court had twice upheld race-conscious college admissions programs in the past 20 years, including as recently as 2016. But that was before the three appointees of former President Donald Trump joined the court. At arguments in late October, all six conservative justices expressed doubts about the practice, which had been upheld under Supreme Court decisions reaching back to 1978. Lower courts also had upheld the programs at both UNC and Harvard, rejecting claims that the schools discriminated against white and Asian American applicants. The college admissions disputes are among several high-profile cases focused on race in America, and were weighed by the conservative-dominated, but most diverse court ever. Among the nine justices are four women, two Black people, and a Latina. The justices earlier in June decided a voting rights case in favor of Black voters in Alabama and rejected a race-based challenge to a Native American child protection law. The affirmative action cases were brought by conservative activist Edward Blum, who also was behind an earlier affirmative action challenge against the University of Texas as well as the case that led the court in 2013 to end the use of a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act. Blum formed Students for Fair Admissions, which filed the lawsuits against both schools in 2014. The group argued that the Constitution forbids the use of race in college admissions and called for overturning earlier Supreme Court decisions that said otherwise. Blum’s group also contended that colleges and universities can use other, race-neutral ways to assemble a diverse student body, including by focusing on socioeconomic status and eliminating the preference for children of alumni and major donors. The schools said that they use race in a limited way, but that eliminating it as a factor altogether would make it much harder to achieve a student body that looks like America. At the eight Ivy League universities, the number of nonwhite students increased by 55% from 2010 to 2021, according to federal data. That group, which includes, Native American, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and biracial students, accounted for 35% of students on those campuses in 2021, up from 27% in 2010. The end of affirmative action in higher education in California, Michigan, Washington state, and elsewhere led to a steep drop in minority enrollment in the states’ leading public universities. They are among nine states that already prohibit any consideration of race in admissions to their public colleges and universities. The others are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. In 2020, California voters easily rejected a ballot measure to bring back affirmative action. A poll last month by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed 63% of U.S. adults say the court should allow colleges to consider race as part of the admissions process, yet few believe students’ race should ultimately play a major role in decisions. A Pew Research Center survey released last week found that half of Americans disapprove of considerations of applicants’ race, while a third approve. The chief justice and Jackson received their undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. Two other justices, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch, went to law school there, and Kagan was the first woman to serve as the law school’s dean. Every U.S. college and university the justices attended, save one, urged the court to preserve race-conscious admissions. Those schools — Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Notre Dame, and Holy Cross — joined briefs in defense of Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions plans. Only Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s undergraduate alma mater, Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee, was not involved in the cases. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Terri Sewell hopeful two of Alabama’s seven congressional districts will become majority-minority
Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL07) participated in a symposium on the Milligan v. Allen decision at Miles College on Tuesday. There Sewell said she would not be satisfied with less than “50 percent plus one or more” African American in two of Alabama’s congressional districts. The Legislature redistricted the state in 2021, but the federal courts have since ruled that the Legislature’s redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and have ordered the Legislature to draw two majority-minority districts or at least two districts that were largely minority. Sewell said that the recent Supreme Court decision affirming the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision was a surprise given previous court decisions by this current court. “We all expected the Supreme Court to once again gut the Voting Rights Act,” Sewell said. “I am so excited about the historic nature of our victory,” Sewell said. “It was a historic victory for not just Black Americans, but it was a victory for democracy.” Sewell continued, “It is going to force the Alabama Legislature to draw a new congressional districting map by July 21. It (the ruling) does not say that we have to have two majority minorities districts.” On Twitter, Sewell wrote, “The fight for voting rights is the fight of a lifetime. We’ve made progress, but if we are not vigilant about advancing it, we will lose it. Thank you @MilesCollege for hosting this critical and timely discussion! I was honored to join these distinguished guests!” Retired federal Judge U.W. Clemons said that he felt that the map adopted would be one that kept counties together as much as possible. “I think the three-judge panel will give great deference to the map that respects the integrity of the counties,” Clemons said. “I am looking for 50% (Black voters) plus more in each of the districts,” Sewell said. “I am convinced that not only will this decision affect Alabama, it will affect the nation,” Clemons said. “The Supreme Court abided by the precedent set in Thornburgh versus Gingrich.” Clemons explained that “three conditions” exist for creating a majority-minority district under the Thornburgh v. Gingrich precedent. “It has to have a large enough population of minority voters,” Clemons explained. “It has to be able to draw a cohesive district, and there has to be a history of the majority voting in a racially polarizing way. We meet all of those conditions here in Alabama.” “Brown versus the Topeka Board of Education was first argued before the Supreme Court in 1952,” Clemons said. Clemons explained that the ruling determined that separate but equal education was inherently unequal. “That ruling was the first evidence during my life for that there was a God,” Clemons said, adding that this ruling also was likely due to God. Clemons is retired from the federal bench, but he is not retired. “This ruling has the potential to reshape this nation,” Clemons said. Clemons said concerns about the public popularity of the current court may have motivated Chief Justice John Roberts to write this opinion in Milligan versus Allen. “This court has the lowest credibility of any Supreme Court that has ever sat,” Clemons said. “The Chief Justice felt that he had to try to maintain at least some credibility with the public. It is a signal that he, as a chief justice, is representing the nation.” “The Milligan case will have profound impact across this nation,” Sewell said. State Senator Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) said. “It truly is profound what has happened with the Milligan case.” Coleman continued, “Of course, there will be some people who will try to do something that is not what the court said. A Senator I will not name here told me on the phone: We are just going to give you two districts that are 47% African American.” Coleman said that the maps that the Legislature draws will still have to be shown to Milligan and the other plaintiffs in the case, and they can either accept them or ask that the three-judge panel appoint a special master to draw the districts. “If they draw two districts that are 47% African American, a special master will have to come in,” Coleman said. “We want to be able to draw those districts ourselves.” “We already have a safe African American congressional district,” Coleman said. Coleman said that both districts need to be “50 percent plus one or more Black voting age population.” “We have a real opportunity to pick our candidate of choice,” Coleman said. “I have absolutely no faith that the Alabama Legislature is going to do the right thing. It never has,” Clemons said. “The courts are going to do it.” “Neither Democrats or Republicans want the special master to come in,” Coleman said. “Congressional District Two is the one where my former colleague Barry Moore is.” “The Legislature is going to do what it usually does,” Clemons said, “In 1872, we had one Black member of Congress. In 1874, we had one member of Congress.” Alabama would not have another Black member of Congress until Earl Hilliard in 1992. Hilliard’s Seventh Congressional District was 65% African American. Today the Seventh Congressional District is represented by Sewell. “It was 61% African American before redistricting,” Sewell explained. “It dropped to 55% in this redistricting. “It would not be fair for it to fall to below 50%.” Clemons said that it is important that Blacks are united politically. “If the Black Community had four political parties and all four were equal in strength, we would not be politically cohesive,” Clemons said. “For better or worse, most Black communities are Democrats. Frankly, our being Democrats means that we are politically cohesive.” Sewell said that, “Change comes when ordinary people fight to do better, and they work on the ground.” Sewell predicted that if the Democrats pick up a new majority-minority seat in Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, “the first African-American man Hakeem Jeffries will become the Speaker of the House.” The Governor has called a special session for redistricting to start on July 17.
Supreme Court rejects GOP in North Carolina case that could have reshaped elections beyond the state
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state courts can curtail the actions of their legislatures when it comes to federal redistricting and elections, rejecting arguments by North Carolina Republicans that could have dramatically altered races for Congress and president in that state and beyond. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, upheld a decision by North Carolina’s top court that struck down a congressional districting plan as excessively partisan under state law. The high court did, though, indicate there could be limits on state court efforts to police elections for Congress and president, suggesting that more election-related court cases over the issue are likely. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that “state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.” The decision was the fourth major case of the term in which conservative and liberal justices joined to reject the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by conservative state elected officials and advocacy groups. Earlier decisions on voting rights, a Native American child welfare law, and a Biden administration immigration policy also unexpectedly cut across ideological lines on the court. Major rulings are expected by Friday on the future of affirmative action in higher education, the administration’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan, and a clash of religious and LGBTQ rights. The practical effect of Tuesday’s decision is minimal in North Carolina, where the state Supreme Court, under a new Republican majority, already has undone its redistricting ruling. Another redistricting case from Ohio is pending, if the justices want to say more about the issue before next year’s elections. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch would have dismissed the North Carolina case because of the intervening state court action. Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement that the decision “preserves state courts’ critical role in safeguarding elections and protecting the voice and the will of the American people.” The Democratic administration defended the power of state courts in the case. Former President Barack Obama, in a rare public comment on a court decision, applauded the outcome as “a resounding rejection of the far-right theory that has been peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy.” At the same time, the leader of a Republican redistricting group said he was pleased the court made clear there are limits on state courts. The decision “should serve as a warning to state courts inclined to reach beyond the constitutional bounds of judicial review. This is a first, positive step toward reining in recent overreaches of state courts,” Adam Kincaid, president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said in a statement. Derek Muller, a University of Iowa law professor and elections expert, said Tuesday’s decision leaves some room to challenge state court rulings on federal election issues, “but these are likely to be rare cases.” “The vast majority of state court decisions that could affect federal elections will likely continue without any change,” Muller said. The North Carolina case attracted outsized attention because four conservative justices had suggested that the Supreme Court should curb state courts’ power in elections for president and Congress. Opponents of the idea, known as the independent legislature theory, had argued that the effects of a robust ruling for North Carolina Republicans could be reached much further than just that one state’s redistricting. Potentially at stake were more than 170 state constitutional provisions, over 650 state laws delegating authority to make election policies to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations down to the location of polling places, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. The justices heard arguments in December in an appeal by Republican leaders in the North Carolina Legislature. Their efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court on grounds that the GOP map violated the state Constitution. A court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last year’s midterm elections in the highly competitive state. The question for the justices was whether the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections cuts state courts out of the process. Former federal appeals court judge Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative who has joined the legal team defending the North Carolina court decision, said in the fall that the outcome could have transformative effects on American elections. “This is the single most important case on American democracy — and for American democracy — in the nation’s history,” Luttig said. Leading Republican lawmakers in North Carolina told the Supreme Court that the Constitution’s “carefully drawn lines place the regulation of federal elections in the hands of state legislatures, Congress, and no one else.” During nearly three hours of arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of making a broad ruling in the case. Liberal and conservative justices seemed to take issue with the main thrust of a challenge asking them to essentially eliminate the power of state courts to strike down legislature-drawn, gerrymandered congressional district maps on grounds that they violate state constitutions. In North Carolina, a new round of redistricting is expected to go forward and produce a map with more Republican districts. The state’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, praised Tuesday’s decision, but also implicitly acknowledged that it does nothing to inhibit Republicans who control the legislature from drawing a congressional map that is more favorable to them. Cooper, who by state law can’t block redistricting plans approved by lawmakers, said that “Republican legislators in North Carolina and across the country remain a very real threat to democracy as they continue to pass laws to manipulate elections for partisan gain by interfering with the freedom to vote.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Democratic leadership address the Supreme Court rejection of Alabama’s congressional redistricting
On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Alabama must redraw the state’s congressional map to allow an additional Black majority district to account for the fact that the state is 27% Black. The Alabama House Democratic Caucus and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus both applauded the ruling. Alabama House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels (D-Huntsville) said, “During a severely short and limited map-drawing process, our Caucus spoke at length about our view of the law and provided ways the state could craft at least two districts that reflect fair political opportunities for African American voters.” “We are therefore pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the unanimous district court, which found the Alabama maps were discriminatory,” Daniels continued. “We stand ready to participate meaningfully with our colleagues to create a new map that fully complies with the law.” Rep. Terri Sewell wrote on Twitter, “Wow!!! The Supreme Court just upheld Section 2 of Voting Rights Act of 1965 and protected the voices of Black and minority voters. This is a historic victory not only for Black voters in Alabama, but for Democracy itself.” In a press release, Sewell said, “This is a historic victory, not only for Black voters in Alabama, but for Democracy itself. With this decision, the Supreme Court is saying loudly and clearly that the voices of minority voters matter and that fair representation must be upheld. I know that John Lewis and the Foot Soldiers of the Voting Rights Movement are smiling as they look down on us. Today, their sacrifice was rewarded. Our work is not over. We must continue the fight for fair representation by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” State Senator Merika Coleman (D-Birmingham) is the Chair of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus. “From the beginning of this case, we have strongly denounced racial gerrymandering and will continue our efforts to ensure that districts are drawn equitably and fairly,” said Sen. Coleman. “I applaud Chief Justice (John) Roberts for preserving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is a major victory for Black voters in Alabama, as well as the entire nation.” State Representative Napoleon Bracy, Jr. (D-Prichard) is the Vice Chair of the Alabama Black Legislative Caucus. “In a resounding victory for fair representation, the Supreme Court’s unexpected decision stands as a powerful testament to the importance of upholding the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Bracy said. “By prohibiting racial gerrymandering in Alabama, the Court reaffirms the principle that every citizen’s voice deserves to be heard, regardless of their race. This ruling sends a clear message that political power should not be diluted through discriminatory practices, ensuring that the spirit of democracy remains strong and inclusive in Alabama.” In 2021, the Alabama state legislature produced new congressional maps which closely paralleled the previous 2012 redistricting with just one Black majority district. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the majority of the Court sided with the plaintiffs and affirmed that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires the Alabama legislature to draw a second district where minority voters can elect a candidate of their choice. The decision will also have an impact across the South, as today’s decision clears the way for additional minority districts to be drawn in other states with challenged maps, like Georgia and Louisiana. “It is hard to imagine many more fundamental ‘prerequisites’ to voting than determining where to cast your ballot or who you are eligible to vote for,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The 34-page decision in Milligan penned by Roberts recommits to the Voting Rights Act’s promise as the foundation for justice for all, not just some. Roberts was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Kentaji Brown Jackson, and Brett Kavanaugh. Jeff Loperfido is the Interim Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “This is a great day for democracy and for the voting rights of Black and Brown communities throughout the South who continue to be the targets of discriminatory laws that seek to silence their voices and stifle their growing political power,” said Loperfido. “The Court’s forceful repudiation of Alabama’s extreme and disingenuous ‘race-blind’ mapping theory is a testament to the important role the Voting Rights Act plays in rooting out discriminatory electoral practices.” The Legal Defense Fund (LDF), American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Hogan Lovells LLP, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb brought the case in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. It was argued before the Court on Oct. 4, 2022. The case goes back to the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that originally ruled against the State of Alabama. The Supreme Court had stayed its ruling last year at the request of Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, and then-Secretary of State John Merrill. The three-judge panel will decide whether to order the Legislature to redraw the districts following the orders of the Court or order the state to adopt a zoning map drawn by the courts. Two alternative maps were presented to the Court by the plaintiffs. The easiest thing would be for the three judges to order the state to accept one of those maps. Whatever happens, Alabama’s Congressional maps will look substantially different than they are today by the end of the year. This will likely impact hundreds of thousands of Alabama voters. The major party primaries for the congressional districts will be on March 6. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
