The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that Joe Biden does not have the authority to implement his student debt cancellation plan through an executive order. The six conservatives united against the three liberals to deny the president his education initiative. At the time of revealing their opinions, some friction showed itself.
The highest court in the country voted down the president’s initiative, which would have canceled up to $20,000 in loans for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other loan recipients, on the condition that the individual’s earnings are below $125,000.
John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for all but Amy Coney Barrett, who chose to write a concurring opinion, stating that she agreed with the ruling but for different reasons than her colleagues.
Elena Kagan responded on the other side of the aisle, representing Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor. The judge refuted her colleague’s words, disagreed with the case's merits, and implied that the ruling exceeded the court’s powers. “In all respects, the Court has today overstepped its limited and appropriate role in the governance of our nation,” she wrote.
“Reasonable minds can disagree with our analysis - in fact, at least three do,” Roberts wrote in his student debt decision, referring to the dissent. "We do not confuse this clearly sincere disagreement with contempt. It is important that the public is not misled either. Any such misperception would be detrimental to this institution and our country,” he continued.
Roberts did not let the dart thrown by his colleague pass without mention and argued that there is a new tendency to criticize what one does not consider right. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize decisions with which they disagree for going beyond the proper function of the judiciary,” the magistrate said.
