Supreme Court update: Biden student loan case held for final day.

The Supreme Court’s Final Decisions: Student Loan Forgiveness and LGBT Rights

The Supreme Court is set to conclude its term on Friday with two highly anticipated decisions that will have significant implications. One ruling will determine the fate of President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of borrowers. The other case involves a web designer’s claim of First Amendment rights in refusing to provide services for same-sex marriages.

The Fate of Student Loan Forgiveness

In the case of Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Biden administration can proceed with its plan to forgive a substantial portion of the nation’s $1.7 trillion in federal student debt. If approved, this program could benefit approximately 40 million U.S. residents, with around 14 million individuals having their student debt completely wiped away.

However, the program has faced legal challenges. Six Republican state attorneys general argue that the loan forgiveness policy violates the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, two student loan borrowers who do not fully or partially qualify for relief are suing to invalidate the program. Both lawsuits question the justification for the program under the post-9/11 HEROES Act, claiming that President Biden exceeded his authority.

LGBT Rights vs. Religious Convictions

In the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis, a Colorado-based web designer named Lorie Smith asserts her First Amendment right to refuse designing websites for same-sex weddings. This claim conflicts with a Colorado anti-discrimination law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against LGBT residents.

The case draws parallels to the 2018 case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker’s right to refuse making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. However, that decision did not have broad implications for Colorado’s anti-discrimination law or establish clear guidelines for when a business is entitled to a First Amendment exemption from compelled speech.

Smith argues that being forced to create a website for a same-sex client would constitute compelled speech, which the Constitution aims to prevent. She fears potential fines if she were to deny such a request, highlighting the clash between LGBT rights and religious convictions.