3 ms·

This one was just clearly unconstitutional right? Not sure if I’m missing something. Not that the government can’t or shouldn’t do something along these lines,

• aluminum96 3y ago
  The court didn't find the HEROES Act unconstitutional; instead, they found that the executive action was not within the language of the HEROES Act. It's pretty bad, in my opinion, that the court even reached the merits, because the plaintiffs obviously do not have standing. None of the states were able to show direct financial injury. Instead, they tried to use Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But then why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit? SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to strike the program down, and this is becoming a theme with the current court. A court that doesn't concern itself with technical correctness is no court at all, but rather a legislature.
• gnicholas 3y ago
  The merits of the case were much more straightforward than the standing analysis. But if the plaintiffs didn't have standing, the merits wouldn't be reached. I was slightly surprised that they ruled on standing the way they did, but the underlying merits decision was completely unsurprising (because, as you say, this was a very clear overstepping — as top dems had admitted just months prior).