The Supreme Court of the United States authorized Friday, for the first time, certain businesses to exclude LGBTQ + customers then invalidated a flagship measure by Joe Biden on student debt, two decisions which confirm its anchoring on the right.
The day before, the high court, deeply overhauled by Donald Trump, had already abolished affirmative action policies at the university, one of the achievements of the civil rights struggle of the 1960s intended to increase diversity on campuses.
As a year ago, during its historic volte-face on abortion, these three judgments were delivered with the support of the six conservative magistrates against the opinion of the three progressive judges.
AFP
Republicans warmly applauded each of those decisions, while Democrats — led by Joe Biden — voiced strong disagreement. On Friday, the president said he was “very worried” about the increased risk of discrimination against sexual minorities.
But it was on student debt that he suffered the most painful setback: the Supreme Court ruled that his government had exceeded its powers by adopting a costly program without authorization from Congress.
This decision deprives Joe Biden, who is counting on the support of the working classes to win a new mandate in 2024, of a crucial piece in his balance sheet.
AFP
The leader of the Republican senators Mitch McConnell was also delighted that the Court did not let him “fill the pockets of his wealthy constituents and take working-class families for suckers”.
26 million records
Higher education costs a fortune in the United States and nearly 43 million people have federal student loans to repay totaling $1.63 trillion.
At the start of the pandemic, the government of Donald Trump had frozen the repayment of these loans under a 2003 law allowing “relief” for holders of student debt in the event of a “national emergency”. This measure will end on August 31.
AFP
Anticipating this deadline, President Biden announced in August 2022 that he wanted to wipe up to $20,000 from the slate of middle-income borrowers.
The candidates had rushed and 26 million files were filed at a cost of more than 400 billion dollars, according to the White House.
Conservative states had sued, accusing the government of committing taxpayers’ money without the green light from Congress. According to them, the 2003 law, invoked by the administration, covers the freezing of the debt and not its cancellation.
“We agree with them,” Judge John Roberts wrote on Friday with the support of the five other conservative magistrates.
Cake
It is the Court which “exceeds its role” by “substituting itself for Congress and the executive to make a decision of internal policy”, retorted their progressive sisters.
Similarly, they protested against the “deeply unfair” decision of their colleagues to agree with a creator of websites who refuses, in the name of her Christian faith, to design sites for gay marriages.
Companies whose services have creative value can invoke their freedom of expression not to provide a service that goes against their values, the majority justified.
This judgment is the culmination of a legal campaign initiated by the religious right after the historic decision of the Supreme Court, in 2015, to legalize same-sex marriage.
A first file had been brought by a Christian pastry chef who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. In 2018, the High Court agreed with him on additional grounds, without enacting major principles.
The question was not long in coming back to court, this time posed by the website designer: Lorie Smith challenged a Colorado law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation under penalty of a fine of up to 500 dollars.
She rejoiced Friday of her “victory”. “The government should never force anyone to say things they don’t mean,” she said in a video uploaded by the religious freedom organization Alliance Defending Freedom. represented.
The Court’s decision “will hurt and stigmatize LGBTQ families,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of the GLAAD association which defends this community. “This is yet another example of a Court that is out of touch with the vast majority of Americans.”