(NEW YORK) — On Wednesday, former Trump White House adviser Kellyanne Conway met with prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office as part of their criminal investigation into Trump and the alleged hush payment to Stormy Daniels, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Conway is the latest witness to meet with prosecutors. Others include Michael Cohen, Trump’s one time fixer and lawyer who funded the payment, and David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer who helped arrange it.
Last month, Cohen gave his 15th interview with the district attorney’s office, which was the first since a recently convened grand jury began hearing evidence about Daniels’ long-denied affair with Trump. Pecker appeared before the grand jury on Jan. 30.
A spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declined to comment about Conway’s appearance or the status of the investigation into Trump’s role in the payment, that was made to Daniels in the closing moments of the 2016 presidential campaign to keep her quiet about a long-denied affair she alleged she had with Trump.
The hush-money case was initially rejected by former District Attorney Cy Vance, but revived under current DA Bragg, whose office has been fending off criticism of a decision not to charge Trump earlier.
Conway’s meeting was first reported by The New York Times.
Trump has denied wrongdoing and dismissed the investigation as political and has called Bragg’s investigation a “witch hunt.”
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office is probing whether Trump had a hand in falsifying business records when his company reimbursed Cohen the $130,000 he gave to Daniels, ABC News has previously reported according to sources.
(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Republicans on Thursday introduced The Parents Bill of Rights, which they say would give parents more insight and power into their children’s education.
According to a breakdown of the bill from Rep. Julia Letlow, R-La., school districts would be publicly required to post curriculum information, provide parents with a copy of revisions to state education standards, provide parents with the list of books and reading materials available in the library and more.
“You have a say in your kids’ education, not government and not telling you what to do,” McCarthy said in his remarks.
Activists, parents and families from across the country gathered in the Rayburn Room to tout the new proposal alongside McCarthy, the House Republican Conference chair, Elise Stefanik, House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx and others.
According to Letlow, parents must also be allowed to address their local school board on issues impacting their children’s education and must be given a say when schools update privacy policies while schools should be encouraged to consider community feedback in decision making.
The bill would require parental consent before medical exams take place at school, “including mental health or substance use disorder screenings,” and inform parents of violent activity at school.
“We are going to fight to make sure that our voices are heard, that we have a right to have a seat at the table when it comes to our children’s education,” Letlow said Thursday.
A similar bill in 2021, from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., failed to move forward in the previous Congress.
The new bill has 73 republican co-sponsors and the GOP-led House “will pass” it later this year, Stefanik said.
“I couldn’t imagine someone would oppose a Parents Bill of Rights,” McCarthy told ABC News after the event, adding, “Parent gets to guarantee[d] to know what their children are being taught, parent gets to know what their money is being spent on. … More importantly, the parents get to know if there is any activity on campus that could harm their child or not.”
However, the debate over what is taught in public school classrooms and how has indeed become controversial and education has been a hot-button issue for the GOP since the COVID-19 pandemic pushed schooling into the home during widespread shutdowns.
In his House speaker acceptance speech in January, McCarthy said he would help pass bills to address what he claimed was “woke indoctrination in our schools.”
It’s a sentiment applauded and repeated by conservative legislators targeting education, though Democrats have criticized such efforts as discriminatory and anti-free speech.
Across the country, Republican lawmakers have sought to restrict certain subjects from classrooms as well as allow some parents to have more control over their child’s education and access to certain material.
In recent years, schools and libraries have been bombarded with a record number of calls for book banning from conservative groups that have primarily affected literature written by or about people of color or LGBTQ people, according to the American Library Association, which tracks book ban attempts.
Republican-backed legislation in several states has also sought to restrict race-related or LGBTQ-related content in schools, some of which has been criticized by educators and students and has pushed some teachers from schools.
In Florida, more than one million books are under review due to recent legislation banning certain race- and LGBTQ-related content in schools.
The National Education Association, the largest labor union in the U.S., which represents educators and school faculty, said in a statement that the new education bill in the House is driving a wedge between educators and parents who “continue to be partners, working to ensure all students, no matter their race or background, have the opportunity to succeed.”
“McCarthy would rather seek to stoke racial and social division and distract us from what will really help our students thrive: an inspiring, inclusive, and age-appropriate curriculum that prepares each and every one of them for their future,” NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement.
She continued, “Parents and voters agree that elected leaders should be focused on getting students the individualized support they need, keeping guns out of schools, and addressing educator shortages.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden is expected to soon wield his veto power for the first time to save a Department of Labor rule related to ESG investments.
The rule, which makes it easier for retirement plan managers to consider climate change and other environmental, social and governance principles in their investment decisions, has been dubbed “woke” by congressional Republicans who argue it unfairly penalizes certain industries like oil and gas.
The White House has countered that the rule “reflects what successful marketplace investors already know” about the potential positive impacts of ESG and is meant to remove barriers put in place by the previous administration.
The Senate voted Wednesday to topple the new regulation, 50-46. Two Democrats — West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Montana’s Jon Tester — joined Republicans in approving the resolution. The House previously approved it on Tuesday in a 216 to 204 vote, with Maine Democrat Jared Golden joining the GOP.
Biden will veto the resolution, the White House said. It will mark the first time he’s had to use the presidential power after two years of a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Given the margins the resolution passed through Congress this week, it is unlikely to be approved again by veto-proof majorities.
“The President will continue to deliver for America’s workers. If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 30, he would veto it,” the White House said in a statement earlier this week.
Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., brought the resolution to the Senate floor under the Congressional Review Act to bypass the 60-vote Senate filibuster. In floor remarks on Wednesday, Braun called the Department of Labor rule “a step too far” on the part of the federal government.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., described ESG as a “scam by the radical left” to push a liberal agenda.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, at the daily briefing ahead of the Senate vote, in turn accused Republicans of forcing their ideology “down the throats of the private sector and handcuffing investors.”
“This is unacceptable to the president,” she said. “And that is why he will veto this bill if it does come to his desk. President Biden is focused on protecting workers’ hard earned life savings and pensions. And that is — that is what he’s going to continue to do.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in floor remarks also fired back that Republicans are placing retirees in the middle of their “wholly made up culture war.”
“This isn’t about ideological preference. It’s about looking at the biggest possible picture possible for investors to minimize risk and maximize returns,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, noting that many leading companies already publish ESG reports.
The Department of Labor rule went into effect on Jan. 30. The agency said it was to remove the barriers on ESG investments put in place during the Trump administration and would make retirement savings and pensions “more resilient.”
The White House has said that the rule is not a mandate and reflects feedback from 900 written comments and 20,000 signatures from financial service companies, plan participants and more.
(WASHINGTON) — The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted Wednesday to approve a bill that would give President Joe Biden the authority to ban TikTok in the United States despite objections from some lawmakers and advocates who say the measure could disrupt online speech freedoms.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Tuesday he hasn’t read the bill yet and wouldn’t comment on it. Ultimately, it would be up to McCarthy and House GOP leadership to bring the bill to the floor, where it would be expected to pass.
The Deterring America’s Technological Adversaries Act — or the DATA Act — aims to create a legal framework that would allow the executive branch to ban TikTok and other apps owned by Chinese companies.
The bill, introduced Friday by Committee Chair Mike McCaul, R-Texas, before moving quickly through the committee process, would allow President Biden or any future president to impose sanctions, including a possible ban, against any company that “knowingly provides or may transfer sensitive personal data” to any foreign person or company that is “subject to the jurisdiction or direction of … China.”
The panel’s vote comes just days after the Biden administration ordered federal agencies 30 days to ensure they do not have TikTok on any federal devices, and to ensure that contractors meet the same standard within 90 days. TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company Bytedance, has long maintained that it does not share data with the Chinese government and that its data is not held in China.
The legislation would change what’s known as the Berman amendment to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which blocks the U.S. government from restricting the free flow of “information and informational materials” in overseas trade. Those amendments have always been considered an impediment for any executive action to ban TikTok.
Democrats on the committee warned the bill is overly broad. In a letter to McCaul and Ranking Member Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the Americans Civil Liberties Union warned this legislation “creates a slippery slope” that could “erode” the Berman amendment’s protections for the free flow of movies, books, and artwork.
Attorney General Merrick Garland is sworn in before testifying before an oversight hearing to examine the Justice Department, in Washington, D.C., March 1, 2023. — Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — For the first time since his appointment of two special counsels to oversee investigations into both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Attorney General Merrick Garland is testifying before lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for an annual oversight hearing.
Garland, who is famously tight-lipped in terms of discussing any aspects of ongoing criminal investigations before his department, will likely be pressed on a wide-ranging number of topics from investigators’ actions in the Trump and Biden cases, the new revelations of classified materials found in former Vice President Pence’s home, to the still-unresolved investigation into Biden’s son Hunter.
Other topics Garland could be pressed on — the department’s formal position regarding when prosecutors should recommend the death penalty for certain federal offenders, the recent arrest of former FBI special agent Charles McGonigal in New York over his ties to a Russian oligarch, DOJ’s civil rights investigations into alleged incidents of police brutality, and how DOJ is responding to various threats from abroad.
His appearance also comes as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given Fox host Tucker Carlson unfettered access to thousands of hours of video from the Capitol during the Jan. 6 assault on Congress, despite warnings in the past from prosecutors that widespread release of such video could potentially compromise the safety of lawmakers. McCarthy on Tuesday defended giving the footage to Carlson and said other networks and the American public would get access to the video as “soon as possible” but did not commit to a timeline.
(CHICAGO) — The race for Chicago’s next mayor was shaved to just two candidates Tuesday while voters overwhelmingly stopped incumbent Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s attempt at a second term, making her the first incumbent mayor in 40 years to not win reelection.
Former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson both advanced to the runoff election, to be held on April 4.
None of the candidates in the crowded field of nine managed to lock 50% of the vote for a win, so the top two vote-getters will head to the runoff. According to the Chicago Board of Elections, 507,852 total ballots were cast, representing a total citywide turnout of 32%.
“Our fight isn’t over yet and we will be spending the next five weeks talking to the people of our city about the need to elect a leader who is transparent, accountable, collaborative and who puts public safety at the top of our priorities,” Vallas said in a statement. “I’m ready to take on that challenge and be a mayor for all Chicagoans.”
“They said this would never happen. I am so freaking proud. Because we did this,” Johnson told supporters Tuesday. “A few months ago, they said they didn’t know who I was. Well, if you didn’t know, now you know. We have shifted the political dynamics in this city.”
Lightfoot’s loss is a reversal from four years earlier when, as a relative unknown who had never held public office, the former prosecutor won every ward in Chicago by campaigning as an outsider who was motivated to reform the city’s tribal political culture. She became the city’s first Black woman and openly gay person to serve as mayor.
Like all big city mayors across the U.S., she faced significant challenges following the social unrest in 2020 and COVID-19 lockdowns early in her term, but she later could not convince voters she had a solution to the mounting issues of crime and public safety.
At the end of 2022, Chicago had nearly 700 murders, down from 804 in 2021 but still high compared to earlier years, according to the Chicago Police Department’s end-of-year report. In addition, the city saw more than 20,000 incidents of theft in 2022, up from 10,590 incidents in 2021. Viral images of lootings, car jacking and weekend street races throughout the summer months contributed to the perception that Lightfoot had lost control of trying to crack down on crime.
“Obviously, we didn’t win the election today, but I’m being here with my head held high and a heart full of gratitude. I am grateful to the millions of Chicagoans who came together as we made tough decisions, saw the struggles of our frontline workers and beat back a deadly pandemic” she said Tuesday. “I’ll be rooting and praying for our next mayor to deliver for the people of this city for years to come.”
Both Vallas, 69, and Johnson, 46, are Democrats who have the backing of the city’s most powerful labor unions, respectively — the Fraternal Order of Police for Vallas and the Chicago Teachers Union for Johnson. The alliances reflect the opportunities and vulnerabilities of both candidates. Vallas is running as a moderate Democrat who wants to invest more in public safety while Johnson is on record saying he advocates for redirecting funds more to social services and intervention programs. He has avoided answering questions on whether he would divest in or reduce the Chicago Police Department budget.
Both mayoral candidates say they would fire Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown.
Lightfoot has said she is working to make Chicago “the safest big city in the country” by working on getting illegal guns off the streets, hiring more officers and investing in communities to address violence. Others, though, have said she needs to do more.
But there still have been improvements overall regarding crime in Chicago. ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas spent a day with Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown in October for an inside look at the department’s efforts to curb gun violence — incidents affecting many Chicagoans — throughout the city. At the time, shootings in Chicago were down 20% through the end of summer and homicides had fallen 16%.
Vallas has made combatting crime the central issue for his campaign — echoing how public safety came to define high-profile races for New York governor, where incumbent Kathy Hochul faced a major rival in Lee Zeldin, and the 2022 recall of San Francisco’s top prosecutor.
(WASHINGTON) — FBI director Christopher Wray on Tuesday spoke publicly for the first time on the bureau’s assessment that the COVID-19 virus “most likely” originated from a potential lab incident in Wuhan, China.
He also faulted the Chinese government in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier for, he said, trying to thwart the work of U.S. agencies investigating the beginnings of the global pandemic.
“The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” he said.
Wray’s comments came after a report in the Wall Street Journal, not independently confirmed by ABC News, that a new Department of Energy assessment has found the virus was most likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, but it did so with “low confidence,” compared with the FBI’s “most likely” finding with “moderate confidence.”
While the DOE assessment, which the New York Times reported was based on new intelligence, is in line with the FBI’s, four other U.S. agencies believe the virus was a result of natural transmission and that the virus, known as SARS-CoV-2, jumped from animals to humans at a wet market. Two other agencies are undecided.
“The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” Wray said.
“Let’s step back for a second. You know, the FBI has folks agents, professionals, analysts, virologists, microbiologist, etc, who focus specifically on the dangers of biological threats, which include things like novel viruses like COVID and the concerns that they’re in the wrong hands,” he said, “some bad guys, a hostile nation state, a terrorist a criminal, the threats that those those could pose.”
“So, here you’re talking about a potential leak from a Chinese government-controlled lab that killed millions of Americans, and that’s precisely what that capability was designed for,” he continued.
“I should add that, that our work related to this continues. And there are not a whole lot of details I can share that aren’t — aren’t classified,” he told Baier.
“I will just make the observation that the Chinese government seems to me has been doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate the work here the work that we’re doing the work that our U.S. government and close foreign partners are doing. And that’s unfortunate for everybody,” Wray said.
(WASHINGTON) — While calls for the U.S. to send F-16s to Ukraine have generated a lot of attention, a top Pentagon official told lawmakers Tuesday that the planes are not one of Kyiv’s top three requests and that there would be no advantage in the U.S. providing training now ahead of any potential delivery of the aircraft.
Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, told the House Armed Services Committee that President Joe Biden and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke about F-16s during Biden’s surprise visit to Kyiv last week and that Ukraine’s “top priorities are air defense systems … keeping their interceptors and our defense network alive against Russian cruise missiles and the Iranian drones, artillery and fires which we’ve talked about, and armored and mechanized systems.”
He said the fastest available timeline of delivery of the aircraft and potential training would be 18 months.
“So, you don’t actually save yourself time by starting the training early in our assessment. And since we haven’t made the decision to provide F-16s and neither have our allies and partners. It doesn’t make sense to start training them on a system they may never get,” Kahl said.
Overall, Kahl said, giving Ukraine new F-16s would take three to six years and giving it older versions would take 18-24 months.
Last Friday, in an exclusive interview with ABC News anchor David Muir, Biden was asked about Zelenskyy publicly pushing the U.S. for F-16s.
“You don’t think he needs F-16s now?” Muir Biden.
“No, he doesn’t need F-16s now,” Biden responded.
Asked by Muir if that meant “never,” Biden said there was no way to know exactly what the Ukraine’s defense would require in the future, but that “there is no basis upon which there is a rationale, according to our military now, to provide F-16s.”
“I am ruling it out for now,” Biden said.
Kalh said what the Ukrainians have asked for is a mix of 128 U.S. made aircraft, including F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.
The U.S. Air Force believes that, over the long term, Ukraine would need 50 to 80 F-16s to replace its existing air force, but that would require newly built F-16s which would cost $10 billion to $11 billion, he said.
Getting only half that number with slightly older versions would still cost $2 billion to $3 billion, he said, making the argument that it made more sense to use comparable amounts of money now to meet Ukraine’s needs for Patriots and Bradley Fighting Vehicles in the current fight.
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Republicans, joined by some Democratic colleagues, may soon send legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk to rescind changes to Washington, D.C.’s criminal code that were opposed by the district’s mayor but overwhelmingly supported by its city council.
The Senate legislation, being led in the chamber by Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., would roll back a newly-passed package that, among other things, expands the requirement for jury trials and reduces penalties for some violent crimes, including robberies and carjackings, while punishments for other crimes would increase.
The so-called crime bill, which has been worked on for more than 16 years by local officials and was unanimously passed by the city council last year, has come under fire from some lawmakers and activists in D.C. — including Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat.
Under the district’s unique status, Congress has ultimate jurisdiction over its laws.
Congressional republicans say the new criminal code will worsen public safety in the nation’s capital while its supporters, including on the city council, have said it is a necessary and nuanced set of revisions to century-old laws. (Experts say the underlying data shows the reality of how criminal sentencing is imposed is more complicated than it may appear when comparing the new and old criminal codes.)
The House’s Republican majority, along with 31 House Democrats, last month approved a bill to block the new criminal code.
On Monday, Senate Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia breathed new life into the legislation’s prospects of passing the chamber, narrowly controlled by Democrats, by announcing his intention to support it.
“You’ve got to send a signal you’re not going to slap them [criminals] on the wrist. They know exactly what they can get by with all over the country,” Manchin said.
The proposal is expected to come to the Senate floor under a special procedural tool that exempts it from some of the usual hurdles. It will only require a simple majority of votes to pass.
With Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., out for an indefinite length of time while he receives treatment for clinical depression at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Manchin’s support coupled with that of all Republicans in the chamber clears a pathway for passage.
Separately, when asked if he would support the GOP effort to quash the new criminal code and oppose his party’s leadership, Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said, “It’s not looking good.” But he did add that he needed to get briefed by his staff.
Joe Biden’s administration has said it opposes such a move without guaranteeing a veto. That sets up a potentially fraught political predicament for the president, who is expected to soon announce his 2024 campaign, given how Republicans have and continue to emphasize public safety and crime as major concerns.
Both Manchin and Tester are also up for reelection next year in states where the GOP dominates.
“Democrats want to debate anything and everything besides violent crime itself, because the modern Democratic Party and its coalitions have decided it’s more important to have compassion for serial violent felons than for innocent citizens who just want to live their lives,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said during a floor speech on Monday focused on the D.C. law. “That’s the issue here: a binary choice. Should we be softer on crime, like Democrats want, at the local, state and federal levels? Or should we be tougher on crime, like Republicans and the American people want?”
Hagerty said Tuesday he expects a vote on his bill could come up in the Senate as soon as next week. He’s confident it will pass, with the support of perhaps even more than one Democrat, he said on Tuesday.
“I think a number of Democrats are looking at this very hard,” he said. “The attempt by some to conflate D.C. statehood and what should be just public safety concerns I think is very misguided, and I think some of my colleagues are waking up to that.”
Hagerty was referring to a renewed push among some in D.C. to grant the district statehood so that it would not be subject to Congress’ authority over its laws.
The White House previously issued a statement decrying congressional action on D.C.’s criminal code.
“Congress should respect the District of Columbia’s autonomy to govern its own local affairs,” read an administration statement issued last month, which advocated for D.C. statehood.
During a press gaggle on Tuesday, White House spokesperson Olivia Dalton referred reporters back to that statement.
“But broadly speaking, the president has been clear that we have to do more to reduce crime and save lives and he has outlined how he anticipates we should do so in his ‘safer America’ plan,” Dalton said.
Many Senate Democrats share the administration’s view that D.C. ought to be able to govern itself.
“I’m a home rule guy,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Tuesday. “I tend to believe we shouldn’t be micromanaging what D.C. does. D.C. elects a city council and mayor and they have the complete capacity to judge their actions and decide if they want different people.”
The public safety issue has divided D.C.’s local government as crimes like carjacking have been on the rise. Mayor Bowser vetoed the council’s bill in January. But her veto was overridden.
ABC News’ Beatrice Peterson, Ben Gittleson, Alexandra Hutzler and Trish Turner contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday appeared deeply skeptical of the legality of a White House plan to forgive $400 billion in federal student loans during the pandemic, even as the Biden administration vigorously defended its power and attacked the ability of six states to block it.
Oral arguments in a pair of cases challenging the Biden plan, which remains on hold pending the litigation, stretched well past their scheduled two hours, as the justices wrestled with key questions of legal standing and legal authority under a 2003 education law.
The court’s conservative justices seemed most concerned about the scope and scale of the administration’s action, which was not specifically authorized by Congress.
“We’re talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “I think most casual observers would say, if you’re going to give up that much amount of money, if you’re going to affect the obligations of that many Americans on a subject that’s of great controversy, they would think that’s something for Congress to act on.”
After the relief program was announced in August 2022, more than 26 million Americans signed up; 16 million were approved for relief before federal courts put it on hold pending the litigation, according to the White House. More than 90% of the financial benefit would accrue to individuals making less than $75,000 a year, an administration official said.
“In effect, this is a grant of $400 billion,” posited Justice Clarence Thomas, “and it runs headlong into Congress’ appropriations authority.”
Justice Samuel Alito suggested it’s unlikely Congress could have imagined implicitly authorizing a plan of such a large scale. “A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, it doesn’t seem very sensible,” he said. “Is this the sort of thing Congress is likely to address expressly?”
“Congress did address this expressly here,” replied Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the Biden administration. She said the HEROES Act, which Congress approved 20 years ago, explicitly grants the Education Secretary authority to “waive or modify” the terms of existing federal student loans during a national emergency.
“It’s perfectly logical for Congress to broadly empower the executive to provide benefits, especially in a crisis situation or an emergency like we’ve seen with COVID-19,” Prelogar said. The administration says financial fallout from the COVID pandemic had “profound” effects on student borrowers.
“This is not a situation where the secretary is acting outside the heartland of his authority,” she said. “This is the student loan program. That falls within the wheelhouse of the secretary of education.”
The three liberal justices relentlessly zeroed in on the legal standing of six GOP-led states suing the administration, suggesting none would suffer direct harm from federal loan cancellation and therefore have little grounds to sue.
The court’s precedents say a plaintiff must suffer an “injury in fact” directly flowing from a policy or program in order to challenge it in court.
“We really do have to be concerned about jumping into the political fray, unless we are prompted to do so by a lawsuit that is brought by someone who has an actual interest,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who suggested the alleged harm to states was “attenuated.”
Jackson added that she “worries” about the government’s ability to operate if states can sue over the “most minor state interests.”
A key focus of the questions on standing was the state of Missouri, home to the nation’s largest loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA. It alleges that eliminating loans on the company’s books would in turn harm its ability to contribute student aid to Missouri.
“About half of MOHELA’s operating revenue from direct loans will be cut and overall that amounts to about forty percent of its operating revenue,” said James Campbell, Nebraska’s solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the states. “The state’s interest is directly implicated.”
“MOHELA is not here, General Crawford [sic]; isn’t that correct?” responded Justice Elena Kagan. “Usually we don’t allow one person to step into another’s shoes and say I think that that person suffered a harm, even if the harm is very great.”
Added Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “It’s hard to imagine how the state of Missouri can claim an injury … when it’s not responsible for the debts of MOHELA.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to share some of the concerns about standing related to MOHELA, which is notably not a party to the case.
“If MOHELA is an arm of the state, why didn’t you just strong-arm MOHELA and say you’ve got to pursue this suit?” Barrett asked skeptically.
A second, related challenge to the Biden debt forgiveness plan, brought by two individual borrowers who are ineligible for relief, accuses the administration of acting arbitrarily without sufficiently considering the interests of all Americans as required by law.
While federal law ordinarily requires a public “notice and comment” period for significant regulatory changes, the administration argues emergency circumstances allowed them to bypass that process.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh suggested the administration overlooked questions of fairness.
There may be “deficiency” for not considering costs to “in terms of fairness, for example, people who have paid their loans, people who don’t — plan their lives around not seeking loans, and people who are not eligible for loans in the first place,” Gorsuch said. “I didn’t see anything in the [secretary’s] memorandum that dealt with those kinds of questions.”
“There are going to be winners and losers, and that raises similar questions about individual rights, individual liberty,” said Kavanaugh.
Justice Alito added: “Why is it fair to the people who didn’t get comparable relief?”
“Congress has made the judgment that when an emergency affects borrowers in this way, the secretary can provide relief,” Prelogar said.
A decision in the cases is expected by the end of June.
