4 ms·

Can someone who understands law tell me if I'm correct? SCOTUS said in a brief that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the administrative branch this

Can someone who understands law tell me if I'm correct? SCOTUS said in a brief that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the administrative branch this power [1]. So, SCOTUS has invoked the Major Questions Doctrine (which I think the current court invented?), and through that, decided that this was too much power for the administrative branch to have? Is this a correct understanding of what has happened here? [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-506/251435/20230104222942852_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-506/251435/2023...

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
This is a brief, not the ruling of the court. Major questions doctrine is older than (most of) the current Court, e.g. see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T Co. from 1994.
- Miner49er 3y ago
  > This is a brief, not the ruling of the court. I'm aware, but in the brief they said that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. Since it's a brief is that meaningless? I don't really know how briefs are created. And I wasn't aware the doctrine existed before, thanks. Though apparently the term was never used in a majority opinion until this court.
  - leftandright 3y ago
    Briefs are submitted to the court by parties involved in the litigation before the court even hears oral arguments on the case. They are one-sided arguments, not holdings of the court. That brief is written by the Biden administration. The Biden administration argued that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. The majority ruling by SCOTUS did not agree. From Justice Kagan’s dissent: “Wielding its judicially manufactured heightened-specificity requirement, the Court refuses to acknowledge the plain words of the HEROES Act.” (p. 28) So Justice Kagan would agree that a plain text reading would give the administration the power to forgive outstanding loan balances. However, the majority’s ruling was that the “text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program.” (p. 3)

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

This is a brief, not the ruling of the court. Major questions doctrine is older than (most of) the current Court, e.g. see MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T Co. from 1994.

Miner49er 3y ago
> This is a brief, not the ruling of the court. I'm aware, but in the brief they said that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. Since it's a brief is that meaningless? I don't really know how briefs are created. And I wasn't aware the doctrine existed before, thanks. Though apparently the term was never used in a majority opinion until this court.
- leftandright 3y ago
  Briefs are submitted to the court by parties involved in the litigation before the court even hears oral arguments on the case. They are one-sided arguments, not holdings of the court. That brief is written by the Biden administration. The Biden administration argued that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. The majority ruling by SCOTUS did not agree. From Justice Kagan’s dissent: “Wielding its judicially manufactured heightened-specificity requirement, the Court refuses to acknowledge the plain words of the HEROES Act.” (p. 28) So Justice Kagan would agree that a plain text reading would give the administration the power to forgive outstanding loan balances. However, the majority’s ruling was that the “text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program.” (p. 3)