Latest news with #KetanjiBrownJackson
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Student Loan Update: How New Supreme Court Ruling May Impact Borrowers
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision allowing the Trump administration to implement widespread layoffs at the Department of Education has stirred concern among student loan borrowers and education advocates. The high court lifted a federal injunction that had blocked the termination of approximately 1,400 employees. While the move is touted as an effort to reduce bureaucratic overhead, it's also criticized for potentially undermining support services for millions of students and borrowers. Why It Matters More than 40 million Americans hold student loan debt, totaling over $1.74 trillion nationwide. With the future of the Department of Education up in the air and mass layoffs now enforced, service for borrowers, including those on income-driven repayment plans, could be disrupted. A sign marks the entrance to the U.S. Department of Education headquarters building on June 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. A sign marks the entrance to the U.S. Department of Education headquarters building on June 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. To Know The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Monday, overturning a lower court's ban on Department of Education layoffs. The three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented strongly. Justice Sotomayor wrote, "The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them... the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief." Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, however, hailed the decision as "a significant win for students and families," asserting, "the President... has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies." The layoffs arrive as the Department of Education contends with a significant backlog in processing income-driven repayment plans, reportedly affecting more than 1.5 million borrowers, according to a court filing. Reduced staffing has already led to delays and communication problems, with over 40 percent of surveyed higher education institutions reporting issues related to federal student aid, according to the National Association for Student Aid Administrators report. "They're downsizing an agency that oversees trillions of dollars in debt. If the goal is to eventually absorb the Department into another structure, fine—there's an argument to be made for that. But just slashing staff without a clear plan creates chaos," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "I would expect long hold times, miscommunication, unqualified answers, and unresolved problems. It's the perfect storm for borrower confusion." As the administration forges ahead with the layoffs, borrowers may continue to face delayed assistance with loan management. The Department of Education asserts it will maintain essential functions, but with less federal involvement and a pared-down workforce, the quality and timeliness of student loan servicing may suffer. Further litigation could still impact the ultimate size and authority of the agency. "Technically, it doesn't really affect the loans themselves, which will continue to be acquired and accrue interest as usual," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "However, it could change the support some borrowers receive. As borrowers have questions about federal financial aid, new loan repayment plans, and issues with existing loans, they could find support to be lacking if these layoffs have an effect on the administrative oversight of them." What People Are Saying Melanie Storey, NASFAA president and CEO said in a statement: "Our students and our members need clarity and reliable support for these critical [financial aid] programs. At the end of the day, the Trump administration — all administrations — must deliver on the promise and the programs that Congress passed to support students who wish to pursue postsecondary education." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: "The majority apparently deems it more important to free the Government from paying employees it had no right to fire than to avert these very real harms while the litigation continues. Equity does not support such an inequitable result." Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement: "The U.S. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education. We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most – to students, parents, and teachers. "As we return education to the states, this Administration will continue to perform all statutory duties while empowering families and teachers by reducing education bureaucracy." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Borrowers will be saddled with debt and promises of forgiveness that may never come. Many are already in limbo, unsure of their repayment schedules or why their payments have suddenly increased. They just want clarity. But with staff taking buyouts and operations grinding to a halt, that clarity is nowhere in sight." What Happens Next Many financial experts have already sounded the alarm on how the layoffs could impact student loan borrowers relying on the Department of Education to service their loans. "For student loan borrowers, specifically, this will mean more delays and poorer service in a program that already has service issues," Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek. "The end result is nothing but harm to our current students."
New York Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Ketanji Brown Jackson Knows How to Get People's Attention
When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote her ringing dissent in the case of Trump v. CASA, which severely curtailed the ability of lower courts to serve as a check on unlawful executive orders, she wanted to make abundantly clear the danger of what she regarded as a 'seismic shock' to American legal norms. 'Courts must have the power to order everyone (including the executive) to follow the law — full stop,' she wrote. She continued, in a voice dripping with sarcasm, 'The majority sees a power grab — but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the District Courts.' Social media platforms exploded with outrage. One user asked, in apparent disbelief, 'Did Ketanji Brown Jackson actually pop that stupid little 'wait for it' gag in a SCOTUS opinion?' Another said the dissent 'single-handedly degraded 235 years, four months, and 25 days of SCOTUS precedent.' The worst of them turned the justice's language back on her as a weapon. 'Ketanji Brown Jackson is … (wait for it) …' — well, I won't repeat the insult here, but for good measure, they added, 'full stop.' Her critics were right to note that Jackson was doing something unusual. And it wasn't just those examples. She peppered the whole dissent with expressions like 'Why all the fuss?' 'Do not take my word for it,' 'Here is what I mean,' and the assessment — again with unmistakable sarcasm — 'That is some solicitation.' You won't find anything like that in Marbury v. Madison. What's striking about Jackson's turns of phrase is that they employ what we typically regard as oral language — spontaneous, spoken words — in an extremely serious written text. That choice, and the blowback it encountered, are a chance to consider the arbitrariness and narrowness of the conventions dictating how legal opinions should be written. The expectation that their language be timeless, faceless and Latinate is a matter of custom, not necessity. 'Why all the fuss?' indeed. Jackson is, at 54, the youngest justice on the court. She was raised in the 1980s, a time when America's writing culture was getting markedly less hidebound. Waving aside the hats and girdles and stuffy dance steps of old, the counterculture had shown America how to let its language hang out, too. A new, looser style of writing allowed a play between the oral and the written, and the result enriched the culture rather than impoverishing it. I can't speak for Jackson, but that shift had a big impact on a great many people who grew up in that era's wake. It definitely had a big impact on me. I write in what I hope is a conversational style. Like Jackson, I have sometimes been scolded for it by people who would prefer that I write 'with a tie on,' as it were. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US supreme court clears way for deportations of eight men to South Sudan
The supreme court has allowed the Trump administration to deport the eight men who have been held for weeks at an American military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan, a country where almost none of them have ties. Most of the men are from countries including Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba and Myanmar. Just one is from South Sudan. The supreme court's order on Thursday came after the court's conservative majority last month decided that immigration officials can quickly deport people to countries to which they have no connection. That order paused a district judge's earlier ruling that immigrants being sent to third countries must first be given an opportunity to prove they would face torture, persecution or death if they were sent there. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the eight men and executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the eight men could 'face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival'. Two liberal justices dissented – Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – by saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'What the government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' she added. The Trump administration has been seeking deals with various countries to accept deportees that the US government cannot quickly send back to their homelands. The eight men awaiting deportation to South Sudan have all been convicted of serious crimes, which the Trump administration has emphasized in justifying their banishment. Many had either finished or were close to finishing serving sentences, and had 'orders of removal' directing them to leave the US. Some, like Tuan Thanh Phan – who came to the United States from Vietnam as a child and was convicted of killing someone in a gang altercation when he was 18 – had already planned to return to his home country after serving his sentence. Instead, the US government first told these men that they would be deported to South Africa, and they were asked to sign documents acknowledging their deportation. They refused, and their case came before judge Brian E Murphy of the district of Massachusetts, who ruled that the government must provide 'written notice' to any immigrant facing deportation to a third country, and give them an opportunity to voice a 'reasonable fear' of torture. The men were told instead that they were being deported to South Sudan. The government did not provide Murphy with immediate information about where the men were, and where they were being sent. Eventually, their flight landed in Camp Lemonnier, an American military base in Djibouti. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents worked 12-hour shifts guarding the men. In a sworn court declaration, an official described illness among the detainees and government agents, inadequate medical care, risks of malaria and worry about attacks from militants in Yemen. In May, the Trump administration asked the supreme court to intervene and allow the government to deport the men to South Sudan. They sought agreements with several countries to house immigrants if authorities could not quickly send them back to their homelands. The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Associated Press contributed reporting Solve the daily Crossword
New York Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court Keeps Ruling in Trump's Favor, but Doesn't Say Why
In clearing the way for President Trump's efforts to transform American government, the Supreme Court has issued a series of orders that often lacked a fundamental characteristic of most judicial work: an explanation of the court's rationale. On Monday, for instance, in letting Mr. Trump dismantle the Education Department, the majority's unsigned order was a single four-sentence paragraph entirely devoted to the procedural mechanics of pausing a lower court's ruling. What the order did not include was any explanation of why the court had ruled as it did. It was an exercise of power, not reason. The silence was even more striking in the face of a 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naïve,' Justice Sotomayor wrote, 'but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave.' The question of whether the nation's highest court owes the public an explanation for its actions has grown along with the rise of the 'emergency docket,' which uses truncated procedures to produce terse provisional orders meant to remain in effect only while the courts consider the lawfulness of the challenged actions. In practice, the orders often effectively resolve the case. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Was Asked What Keeps Her Up At Night, And Her Answer Sent A Shiver Down My Spine
US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Thursday expressed profound concern about the state of US democracy, adding that she is also invested in getting people to focus on what's happening in the government. Related: Speaking at an event hosted by the Indianapolis Bar Association in Indiana, Jackson, one of the three liberal members of the court, briefly explained what worries her most about this moment in time. 'What keeps you up at night?' the moderator asked. 'I would say the state of our democracy,' Jackson replied. 'I'm really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government.' She did not elaborate further. Related: During the past term, which concluded on June 27, Jackson wrote 24 opinions and delivered the most dissenting opinions of any judge on the court, according to a SCOTUSblog analysis. Asked how she decides when to pen her own dissents, Jackson said she does so when 'I feel like I might have something to offer, and something to add, and I'm not afraid to use my voice.' Most recently, Jackson was the only dissenting voice in the court's emergency decision that cleared the way for Trump to carry out his mass firings across the federal government. Related: 'For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,' she wrote. 'In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.' The order was unsigned and did not include a vote count, given its emergency nature. Last month, Jackson also wrote a scathing dissent to the 6-3 decision to limit the nationwide injunctions used by judges to halt President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. Related: Jackson said the ruling 'threatens the rule of law' by emboldening the executive branch at the expense of all others. 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the Court concludes today,' she wrote, 'executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends.' This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
