In a recent majority opinion striking down President Joe Biden's student debt relief program, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court expressed his concern about justices questioning their colleagues' decisions. Roberts stated that he found it disturbing that some justices were criticizing decisions they disagreed with, suggesting that they were going beyond the proper role of the judiciary.
“It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote at the end of his majority opinion striking down President Joe Biden’s student debt relief program.
“Today, we have concluded that an instrumentality created by Missouri, governed by Missouri, and answerable to Missouri is indeed part of Missouri; that the words ‘waive or modify’ do not mean ‘completely rewrite’; and that our precedent—old and new—requires that Congress speak clearly before a department secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy,” Roberts said. “We have employed the traditional tools of judicial decision-making in doing so.”
The majority opinion, supported by six justices, concluded that the Biden administration's program, which aimed to cancel debt for millions of borrowers, was not authorized by the federal law cited as its basis. The law allows the education secretary to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs."
The case was brought by Missouri, one of the plaintiffs, as the proposed plan would have resulted in a $44 million cost to a nonprofit organization created by the state. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the instrumentality created and governed by Missouri should be considered a part of the state. He also highlighted that the term "waive or modify" does not imply a complete rewrite, and that both old and new precedents required clear congressional authorization before the secretary of a department could unilaterally alter significant aspects of the American economy. Roberts stressed that traditional tools of judicial decision-making were employed in reaching this conclusion.
Following his analysis, Chief Justice Roberts directed his criticism towards the dissenting opinion presented by Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. The nature and specifics of Justice Kagan's dissent were not detailed in the news blog.
The remarks made by Chief Justice Roberts shed light on an ongoing issue within the Supreme Court regarding the questioning and criticism of colleagues' decisions. The discussion surrounding the proper role of the judiciary and the limits of executive authority continues to be a subject of debate and scrutiny within the legal community.
Comments