U.S. Supreme Court overturns positive discrimination and bans student debt write-offs

At the end of last week, the US Supreme Court made three resonant decisions at once, which run counter to the policy of the administration of President Joe Biden and outraged adherents of liberal views. During the presidency of Donald Trump, the court has developed a solid conservative majority (six against three liberal judges), and now this situation may affect the course of the presidential race in 2024.

Back in 1978, the Supreme Court decided on the right of universities to set their own criteria for the admission of students, among whom, along with achievements, there could be race. Now, this practice should be revised: on June 29, the court sided with the Students for Fair Enrollment movement, which complained about the rules of private Harvard and the state University of North Carolina. According to the plaintiffs, the first discriminated against Asian applicants, and the second also discriminated against whites, not accepting them for study.

Universities have won all court cases up to the highest court. The Supreme Court considered that such norms violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (on the prohibition of deprivation of rights, except by court order). “A student should be treated on the basis of his or her experience as an individual and not on the basis of race. Many universities have been doing just the opposite for far too long,” said US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Black Judge Clarence Thomas noted that while “painfully aware of the social and economic devastation” that has befallen his race, he remains hopeful that the United States will live by the principles that all men are created equal.

Biden said he strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court’s verdict, noting that racial criteria were applied for the sake of greater inclusiveness to applicants who had already passed other tests. Former president and candidate for office in 2024, Trump warmly welcomed the court’s decision, believing that it would allow the United States to “compete with the rest of the world.”

And on June 30, the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s plan to forgive more than $400 billion in student debt, not sanctioned by Congress. It was one of the Democrat’s top promises during the 2020 election campaign. up to 45 million people with low and middle incomes could count on writing off from $10,000 to $20,000 of their debts. 16 million people have already received approval to participate in the program.

Immediately after the verdict, Biden said that the Republicans “stole hope” from the people, and the court “misinterpreted the constitution.” The Democratic president then announced new “debt relief” measures to as many student loan borrowers as possible. This, as conceived by the US presidential administration, should “open an alternative path” to alleviate the debt burden of Americans. At the same time, the details of the new scheme have not yet been disclosed. In addition, Biden intends to ensure that borrowers do not pay more than 5% of their income for education.

Also on June 30, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Colorado-based web designer Laurie Smith to deny service to LGBT+ people and not design wedding websites specifically for same-sex couples. In this case, the court cited the first amendment to the constitution on freedom of speech: such orders were contrary to Smith’s religious beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

In Colorado, discrimination against people on the basis of sexual preference is prohibited by law. But the 1st Amendment prohibits the state from forcing a designer “to create works that convey meaning,” which it disagrees with, the Supreme Court ruling notes. Three liberal judges called this approach a “license to discriminate” because it, in their opinion, treats gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. These judges believe that, citing precedent, designers may refuse to create a wedding site for interracial couples as well. Biden also called the Supreme Court decision “disappointing.”

The resonant decisions of the Supreme Court may also affect the pre-election race for the presidency of the United States, in which both Biden and Trump participate. As Bloomberg writes, ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the federal right to abortion has galvanized Democrats and now history could repeat itself. At the same time, journalists acknowledge the risk that the latest decisions of the Supreme Court may disappoint progressive voters who already hoped for Biden’s greater effectiveness.

According to a June 27 Morning Consult poll, Trump was 3% ahead of Biden, to 44% to 41%. However, there are other data. According to NBC News on June 25, Biden is supported by 49% of voters polled against 45% for Trump. But NBC and CNN agree that most voters are concerned about the health of both Trump and Biden and don’t want either of them to be president for another four years.

The new decisions of the Supreme Court will allow the Democrats to mobilize some of their voters, Alexei Naumov, an expert at the Russian Council on International Affairs, believes. “Although the Race-based admissions program (quota for admission to educational institutions) could be used mainly by African Americans from wealthy families, some Americans with higher education perceive it as an important element in overcoming the consequences of racism,” the expert noted. The decision will allow Democrats to cast Trump supporters in a bad light.

These court decisions also reflect the division and polarization of American society, said the director of the Foundation for the Study of the United States. Franklin Roosevelt Yuri Rogulev. “We see that American politicians are more likely to use the LGBT agenda, racial issues as a tool of political struggle. Today, LGBT movements, BLM (Black Lives Matter) are being formed as a new social class, and politicians are actively exploiting this agenda, which only reinforces the existing contradictions in American society,” the expert said. This trend also reflects the radicalization of the party environment, the expert believes.

In addition, according to Rogulev, the court’s decision partly demonstrates the fatigue of the American society from the pedaling of the protection of the rights of minorities. “Most ordinary Americans are interested in the problem of illegal migration. The last time immigration laws in the United States changed under Bill Clinton was almost 30 years ago. And instead of dealing with this threat, American politicians are more likely to engage in inter-party disputes than to annoy part of the conservative judiciary, ”the expert noted.