A roundup of news and announcements we don’t want to get lost in the fast-churning news cycle!

by Vee Hua 華婷婷

---

---

Supreme Court Decisions Halt Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Program and Ban Affirmative Action

As the Supreme Court’s annual term concluded at the end of June, rulings for a number of key cases were handed down in its last two weeks, with notable implications for a number of communities across the United States. Below are two cases which affect colleges and college students.

Department of Education v. Brown (06/30/2023) and Biden v. Nebraska (06/30/2023)

Rulings related to two different cases served to create the framework for the Supreme Court to determine that the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program overstepped its authority when it declared in 2022 — through what is known as the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) — that it would cancel $400 billion in student loans.

The HEROES Act was originally enacted following the Sept. 11 attacks; according to The New York Times, “ “a version of the law … gave the secretary of education the power to ‘waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision’ to protect borrowers affected by terrorist attacks.” The Biden administration’s student debt cancellations were an extension of policies put in place at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic by the Trump administration, which suspended student loan payments and accrual of additional loan interests.

The Biden v. Nebraska case was brought against the Biden administration by six states with Republican attorneys general, which were Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina. The Department of Education v. Brown case was brought by two individuals with student loans who did not qualify for the amount of debt forgiveness they desired.

The first decision made by SCOTUS was on Department of Education v. Brown, where it was decided that the two individuals who brought the case did not have “standing” — or no legal right to sue, due to lack of harm brought upon them as a result of the HEROES Act debt forgiveness program.

However, in a 6-3 decision, they did find in Biden v. Nebraska that the six states did have a right to challenge the program.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last year that Missouri has a right to sue because it created and controls the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, one of the country’s largest servicers and holders of student loans. If the debt-relief program goes into effect, the states contended, it could cost MOHELA as much as $44 million per year, which will in turn limit the company’s ability to contribute funds to support the state’s higher-education programs,” writes SCOTUSblog. “On Friday the justices upheld that ruling, finding that Missouri has standing to challenge the debt-relief program because the financial harms to MOHELA from the program will also harm Missouri.”

Following that, SCOTUS determined that the debt-relief program also did not comply with federal law. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that while Congress enacted the HEROES Act to give the secretary of education leeway to “waive or modify” regulations related to student loan programs, it did not allow for him to create “a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.’”

Students with existing loans must resume payments this fall. The Biden administration’s efforts to work with the Deparment of Education on other routes towards debt forgiveness will include an “onramp repayment program.” Students who are unable to make payments between October 2023 and the end of September 2024, for financial reasons, will not be penalized.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College 

In another controversial case affecting college students, the Supreme Court declared in a 6-3 vote that affirmative action — or race-based preferences in the college admissions process — are no longer allowed. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority and, according to SCOTUSblog, “explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.’”

He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

The case was brought by a group called Students for Fair Emissions, and the recent SCOTUS ruling effectively overturns a 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which affirmed the ability for the University of MIchigan to consider race in its admissions process, “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”

The Supreme Court ruling did, however, leave some room for universities to consider race on a case-by-case basis. Roberts wrote that “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise” might be considered in the admissions process, but a “benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university.”

The Biden Administration says that the Department of Education will soon host a national summit around this topic and publish best practices for colleges to maintain a diverse student body despite the rulings.

While some states, such as Washington and California, had already enacted similar legislation which applied to public universities, the SCOTUS ruling expands such limitations nationwide, to most universities, both public and private. The University of California college system saw a significant drop in diversity numbers after such policies were enacted, but were eventually able to slightly improve them after spending of millions of dollars to systemically redesign their admissions process to consider other factors, such as socioeconomic status or location of applicants’ high schools.

---

Resilient In Sustaining Empowerment (RISE) Seeks Board Members and Full-Time Staff

June is National Gun Violence Awareness Month, and Resilient In Sustaining Empowerment (RISE) is seeking new board members to join their mission to provide “vital support for marginalized communities directly impacted by gun violence: children, caregivers and families.”

Some of their current programs include a Grief Support Group and The RISE Book Project, which creates books to help families process deaths from gun violence. As the Emerald reported last year, after retooling their current mission in March 2021, “RISE became a program that leads cohorts through eight weeks of holistic therapy and activities that help mothers and their children process gun violence. Participants can connect with therapists, nutritionists, and even local artists who specialize in healing through art.”

RISE now has opportunities for supporters to join their Board, which, according to their press release, “assumes a crucial role in delivering strategic leadership, governance, and fostering the development of the organization’s resources, guiding our endeavors from mere hustle to seamless flow.”

For more information on joining the board, register for an information session.

RISE is also hiring for staff roles, which include a full-time program manager, operations manager, and administrative assistant. Learn more on their website.

---

Our content is funded in part by advertisements. To inquire about advertising with the Emerald, check out our media kit and fill out our application for more info.

---

📸 Featured Image: A panorama of the west facade of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., at dusk on Oct. 11, 2011. Photo is attributed to Joe Ravi (under a Creative Commons, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

The South Seattle Emerald website contains information and content supplied by third parties and community members. Information contained herein regarding any specific person, commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the South Seattle Emerald, its directors, editors, or staff members.

---