The justices of the Supreme Court, who are currently leaning toward a conservative majority, are getting ready to pass judgement on President Joe Biden’s efforts to reshape immigration policy and his programme to forgive student loans. This will have a significant impact on whether or not President Biden is able to accomplish some of the most ambitious items on his agenda in 2023.
In the middle of Vice President Joe Biden’s four-year term, the Supreme Court has already proven to be a significant obstacle for the administration. The court has repeatedly intervened to block policies on issues such as COVID-19 vaccines and immigration, while also issuing major rulings that advance conservative causes. The most notable of these rulings was the June decision to restrict abortion rights by overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
The court, which has a 6-3 majority and is willing to aggressively move the law to the right, is set to rule in a series of similarly headline-grabbing cases before the end of its term at the end of June in 2023, so it is likely that there will be more of the same in 2023. This is because the court has a willingness to aggressively move the law to the right.
The administration’s two most important issues, concerning Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and his effort to wind down a Trump-era immigration policy known as Title 42, will both have their arguments presented in February, with rulings expected to be delivered by the end of June.
On the basis of the oral arguments that took place in October, the conservative justices appear to be on track to put an end to the consideration of race in college admissions and could further weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965 to protect minority voters. Both of these developments are expected to take place in the coming months. Both would be embarrassing defeats for the administration of Joe Biden.
The court will also hand down a decision in a case that pits the rights of LGBTQ people against the beliefs of conservative Christians, as well as a case that involves a dispute over elections that may have a significant impact on the election for president in 2024. In a case that will be debated before the court on February 21, the justices will consider an additional contentious issue: the extent of the immunity that social media companies have over objectionable content that is posted by users.
In a different issue involving immigration, the court has not yet rendered a decision on the endeavor made by the administration of Joe Biden to carry out its immigration enforcement policies.
It is a never-ending uphill battle for Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is the primary advocate for the administration before the court, to argue in front of such a conservative court.
“Being the Solicitor General for a Democratic President before this court is a little bit like being a liberal justice,” said the Democratic Solicitor General. According to Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a columnist for MSNBC, “You know you are going to be on the losing side the majority of the time.”
A graduate of Harvard Law School, Prelogar has been working in the Justice Department of the Biden administration since the commencement of the administration. In October 2021, she was confirmed by the Senate to serve in the capacity that she currently holds. In the beginning of her career, she worked as a clerk for two liberal justices, namely Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice declined to comment on Prelogar’s history with the agency.
The struggle over Biden’s plan to erase student loans is likely to be more vital to the administration than any other case, particularly because the court is now hearing oral arguments in two lawsuits that challenge the policy.
In light of the results of the midterm elections, in which Republicans are projected to take control of the House of Representatives, the current administration has even less room for manoeuvre in order to put its programme into effect than it did in the preceding two years. As a direct consequence of this, the administration may rely more on executive measures in an effort to implement programmes without receiving formal authorization from Congress.
The initiative to cancel student loans, which has already been halted by lower courts, is being cited as an obvious example of improper overreach on the part of the executive branch by those who are challenging it.
When one considers the manner in which the conservative majority has dealt with previous instances in which the government was accused of exceeding its authority, the omens do not bode well for the current administration. For just this reason, the court stopped Biden’s rule that major companies obtain vaccinations back in January. It also stopped the government from extending a moratorium on evictions during the epidemic in August 2021 as a result of this.
In a similar vein, the administration’s hopes to combat climate change by imposing stringent curbs on carbon emissions from power plants were dealt a significant setback in June, when the court placed new limits on the federal government’s authority to issue sweeping regulations under the Clean Air Act. In this case, the administration’s hopes were dashed when the court ruled that the Clean Air Act did not give the federal government the authority to do so.
The situation with Title 42 is a little bit different from the others because it was then-President Donald Trump who put into action the plan to swiftly remove asylum-seekers at the border as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, and it is the Biden administration that is working to undo the strategy. The legal issue at hand is not whether or not Trump possessed the authority to put the policy into effect; rather, the question is whether or not Republican state attorneys general can participate in the case to defend it.
The government has not only had a difficult time defending its own policy decisions but also those of its predecessors. It has also been on the losing side in arguments against substantial changes in the law on culturally controversial social matters, especially in the landmark abortion case decided in June. These arguments were made as a friend of the court.
Another significant judgement was handed down during that month, and the government was once again unsuccessful in its attempt to persuade the conservative majority not to expand existing gun rights. The administration’s arguments against expanding religious liberty have also been ineffective in a succession of decisions that have weakened the barrier that separates church and state. These instances have occurred after the barriers between church and state have been lowered.
The administration of Vice President Joe Biden can take credit for a number of successes earned through hard work. While the court did stop the administration from enforcing the vaccine mandate for private employers, it did allow the administration to implement a separate rule for health care facilities that receive federal funds. In June, the court gave its approval to the administration’s efforts to put an end to President Trump’s “remain in Mexico” immigration policy, which compelled migrants to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims were processed. This policy was supported by the court.
In all of those instances, the administration was successful in gaining the support of three of the court’s liberal justices as well as two of the court’s six conservative judges, namely Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Observers of the court point out that this appears to be the only route to victory in many instances, given that the court’s most conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, are frequently unavailable.
According to John Elwood, a lawyer who argues cases before the Supreme Court, “she’s done a fabulous job as an advocate in oral argument, and the briefs I’ve seen have been solid advocacy and consistent with views of mainstream Democratic administrations.”Elwood was referring to Prelogar’s performance as an advocate during oral arguments.
“To the degree that she is having a difficult time in argument, it is primarily because her client’s arguments are at odds with the opinions held by the majority of the Supreme Court,” he went on to say.