Universal injunctions have no place in our appellate system. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas are the loudest opponents of universal injunctions. It's good to see General Prelogar take this issue head on. I would have preferred it as a QP to a cert petition. But if this filing prompts the Court to finally address the issue, everyone in America wins.
But was it not that the State of MO for convenience chose MOHELA as the afflicted party with"standing" (and by extension, the state itself), rather than MOHELA admin officers originating a claim of relief from the REPAYE/SAVE policies via a lawsuit? Or do I have that wrong, too?
It was always Missouri using that as one of its standing pegs. (I'm not sure what you mean by "was it not" since I never said otherwise, but, that's neither her nor there.)
I can’t imagine a situation where a claim of “irreparable harm” could be more attenuated. Other than possibly an irrevocable forgiveness of the underlying debt, nothing being enjoined could not be addressed retroactively after full litigation.
Is it fair to say that, soon, conservative "jurists" are just gonna start saying, in their opinions, "eh we don't really care for it"? I mean they don't seem to be putting much effort into providing a solid legal basis for their opinions...
i wish both sides could lose. The SAVE plan is such an insane expansion of the IDR plans already in place, I cannot believe that people defend it. On the other hand, the lawsuits and injunctions are bogus too. It’s disappointing that this is how the system currently works.
It's not an "insane" expansion, even though I wouldn't use that word. It's an expansion — a significant one — authorized by the law and in fitting with past implementation of the law. Before we were operating under this Supreme Court, that absolutely would have been the end of it.
Come on, it’s got to be one of the most (if not the most) expensive actions ever unilaterally taken by any department of the Executive branch. Even the crazy folks in the Trump Administration didn’t try to do something even close to this size. I know people like the policy (which has some real merit), but it’s kinda hard to think that Congress delegated this much power to the Education Department. I know many don’t like that the economic impact of these actions matter (especially when it comes to areas where Congress didn’t provide many guardrails); however, we are now in a world where they do. It just seems foolish to not acknowledge that this is now reality and that the Administration should better tailor their regulatory changes to this new reality so they may actually be carried out.
Read the major questions section of the brief. Read the severability discussion. Prelogar more than adequately responds to this; I addressed much of this above. You're more or less just repeating talking points that are not based in fact.
Universal injunctions have no place in our appellate system. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas are the loudest opponents of universal injunctions. It's good to see General Prelogar take this issue head on. I would have preferred it as a QP to a cert petition. But if this filing prompts the Court to finally address the issue, everyone in America wins.
The only time they actually make sense is when it's a law passed by congress that is unconstitutional. (similar application in states)
Can't believe how the MOHELA suit still has legs...were they not a reluctant plaintiff in all this at the kick-off?
It's not MOHELA as a plaintiff. It's Missouri claiming MOHELA.
Ah, sorry, forgot the state's rôle as plaintiff of record.
Starting at paragraph 112 of the complaint, they lay it out: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.211135/gov.uscourts.moed.211135.1.0.pdf
[Of course, and as Prelogar explained, even if that were to justify standing in the HEROES Act case, it should not here.]
But was it not that the State of MO for convenience chose MOHELA as the afflicted party with"standing" (and by extension, the state itself), rather than MOHELA admin officers originating a claim of relief from the REPAYE/SAVE policies via a lawsuit? Or do I have that wrong, too?
It was always Missouri using that as one of its standing pegs. (I'm not sure what you mean by "was it not" since I never said otherwise, but, that's neither her nor there.)
Thank heaven for Prelogar!
She's a tiger and smart as a
whip.
Thank you Chris for laying q
this out.
Thank you for explaining and sharing…..Our run away judiciary can only be checked from within….My opinion as a paralegal……
I can’t imagine a situation where a claim of “irreparable harm” could be more attenuated. Other than possibly an irrevocable forgiveness of the underlying debt, nothing being enjoined could not be addressed retroactively after full litigation.
Yes, obviously, this started getting more lengthy than I wanted, but Prelogar covers that as well on pages 34-38 of the application.
Guess I missed that when I skimmed the SG’s filing. (Great minds, etc. 😉)
I mean, 95% of the time it comes down to likelihood of success on the merits, but all applications are going to address all the points.
Is it fair to say that, soon, conservative "jurists" are just gonna start saying, in their opinions, "eh we don't really care for it"? I mean they don't seem to be putting much effort into providing a solid legal basis for their opinions...
Now I remember why I blocked Jasmine Wolfe!
i wish both sides could lose. The SAVE plan is such an insane expansion of the IDR plans already in place, I cannot believe that people defend it. On the other hand, the lawsuits and injunctions are bogus too. It’s disappointing that this is how the system currently works.
It's not an "insane" expansion, even though I wouldn't use that word. It's an expansion — a significant one — authorized by the law and in fitting with past implementation of the law. Before we were operating under this Supreme Court, that absolutely would have been the end of it.
Come on, it’s got to be one of the most (if not the most) expensive actions ever unilaterally taken by any department of the Executive branch. Even the crazy folks in the Trump Administration didn’t try to do something even close to this size. I know people like the policy (which has some real merit), but it’s kinda hard to think that Congress delegated this much power to the Education Department. I know many don’t like that the economic impact of these actions matter (especially when it comes to areas where Congress didn’t provide many guardrails); however, we are now in a world where they do. It just seems foolish to not acknowledge that this is now reality and that the Administration should better tailor their regulatory changes to this new reality so they may actually be carried out.
Read the major questions section of the brief. Read the severability discussion. Prelogar more than adequately responds to this; I addressed much of this above. You're more or less just repeating talking points that are not based in fact.
Maybe if Biden didn't sign on to the bill that prevented student loan debt from being discharged via bankruptcy, they wouldn't be in this mess.
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-made-it-harder-to-discharge-student-debt-through-bankruptcy-2022-5?op=1