Eleven Republican-led states have initiated a legal challenge against President Biden’s new student loan repayment program, alleging similarities to a previously invalidated debt relief initiative. Led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, the lawsuit contends that Biden’s Saving on a Valuable Education (Save) program exceeds his constitutional authority and mirrors a past forgiveness plan that the Supreme Court struck down last year.

Allegations and Legal Basis

The lawsuit, spearheaded by Kansas AG Kris Kobach, asserts that President Biden’s Save program constitutes executive overreach and draws parallels to a previously rejected debt relief initiative.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Description of the Save Program

President Biden’s Save program, launched in October, aims to provide reduced monthly payments and an accelerated path to loan cancellation for millions of borrowers. While it has already relieved the debts of over 150,000 participants who borrowed under $12,000 and made payments for a decade, its projected cost varies significantly. The Biden administration estimates the program to cost $156 billion over a decade, whereas the Congressional Budget Office predicts a higher figure at $230 billion.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Kansas AG Kobach criticized the Save program, accusing the president of pushing forward despite past legal setbacks. The Education Department refrained from commenting on the lawsuit but reiterated its commitment to enhancing the student loan system and offering relief to borrowers.

Legal Grounds and Previous Challenges

The lawsuit draws upon arguments from previous legal battles against broad-based debt relief. Unlike the failed plan that relied on a 9/11-era law, the Save program derives its authority from the Higher Education Act, presenting a different legal foundation.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Program Mechanics and Conservative Criticism

The Save program, an adaptation of the existing Revised Pay as You Earn (Repaye) plan, ties monthly payments to income and family size. However, conservatives like Kobach argue that widespread debt relief unfairly burdens taxpayers who did not attend college or save for their education.

Legal Landscape and Political Response

The lawsuit follows the Supreme Court’s rejection of a similar debt cancellation program last year, highlighting the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding student loan relief initiatives. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey expressed support for Kobach’s lawsuit and hinted at filing a related one.

Administration’s Perspective

Despite facing legal challenges, the Biden administration continues to advocate for the Save program, emphasizing its potential to alleviate the financial burden for millions of borrowers by reducing their annual payments.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Republican-Led States Challenge Biden's Student Loan Repayment Program first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

As the United States Supreme Court convened on Tuesday, a significant legal battle unfolded regarding the future accessibility of the abortion pill, mifepristone. This pivotal case brings reproductive rights to the forefront of the justices’ considerations, particularly noteworthy during a presidential election year. The Biden administration is vigorously contesting a lower court’s decision that seeks to impose restrictions on how mifepristone is prescribed and distributed. The challenge originated from four medical associations and four physicians who stand against abortion, launching their legal battle in Texas.

Scheduled for 10 a.m. ET, the court’s proceedings were met with fervent demonstrations both for and against abortion rights. Advocates for abortion rights displayed banners asserting “Our bodies, our freedom,” while opponents warned against the dangers of “Chemical abortion.”

FDA’s Regulatory Role Under Scrutiny

At the heart of the dispute are the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulatory amendments that potentially broaden the use of medication abortions up to 10 weeks of pregnancy and allow for the mail delivery of mifepristone without a mandatory in-person clinician visit. These changes are now jeopardized by the case.

Following the 2022 reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court, which previously acknowledged a constitutional right to abortion, states have enacted numerous restrictions on the procedure. Medication abortion, primarily through mifepristone, has since emerged as the most common method for terminating pregnancies in the U.S., representing over 60% of all abortions.

The Legal and Health Implications of Mifepristone Regulation

The controversy extends to the FDA’s decision-making process regarding mifepristone’s accessibility, critiqued by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The FDA had initially approved mifepristone in 2000, championing its safety and efficacy based on extensive global usage and research.

Opponents, however, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argue that the FDA’s easing of mifepristone restrictions contravenes its mandate to ensure medication safety, thus violating federal law. A significant aspect of the Supreme Court’s review involves the legal standing of the plaintiffs, who must demonstrate direct harm attributable to the FDA’s actions.

The plaintiffs express concerns that easing access to mifepristone forces member doctors to compromise their ethical beliefs by treating complications from abortion drugs. The Justice Department rebuts, highlighting the speculative nature of these claims and the inherent responsibilities of emergency medical practitioners.

Political Implications and the Path Forward

With President Joe Biden, a staunch advocate for abortion rights, vying for re-election, the issue of abortion access has become a critical point of contention in the political arena. The administration and its supporters emphasize abortion rights as a key electoral issue against their Republican counterparts.

The legal challenge to the FDA’s approval and expanded access to mifepristone, initiated in 2022, saw partial support from Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Although the 5th Circuit’s ruling did not fully align with Kacsmaryk’s decision, it remains in effect pending the Supreme Court’s verdict, anticipated by the end of June. This ruling has the potential to significantly influence the regulatory landscape for drug safety and the future of abortion access in the United States.

The post Supreme Court Deliberates on Abortion Pill Access Amidst Biden's Advocacy first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Seasonal Generosity or Expensive Agenda?

As we bid farewell to Thanksgiving, we ushered into the festive aura of Christmas. It’s a time when benevolence seems to permeate the air and for none more so than President Joe Biden, who, it seems, is embracing the holiday spirit with open arms—particularly when it comes to your hard-earned money.

The Aftermath of a Supreme Court Setback

After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Biden’s unilateral attempt to forgive a substantial chunk of student loans, he has been on a relentless quest to find alternative routes. His latest move, however, raises concerns for those who’ve settled their loans and the millions who chose a different educational path altogether.

The Unraveling of Biden’s Student Loan Strategy

A Costly Pivot

President Biden’s previous attempt at unilateral loan forgiveness faced a legal dead-end. Undeterred, he now pivots to what critics call a ‘sneaky’ alternative plan, aiming to make a significant impact before the next presidential election.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The SAVE Program Unveiled

Dubbed the “Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE)” program, this initiative aims to expand income-driven repayment plans, a move some argue exceeds the intended scope of the Higher Education Act. Unlike previous attempts, this plan is touted as permanent, potentially affecting millions of Americans.

The Financial Implications

Affordability at Whose Expense?

The SAVE program broadens caps on monthly payments based on income and family size, offering interest subsidies and, for some, the prospect of eventual loan forgiveness. The White House bills it as the “most affordable student repayment plan ever,” but questions linger: Affordable for whom?

The True Cost of Forgiveness

While individual borrowers may find relief, the financial burden ultimately falls on taxpayers. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the SAVE program is estimated to cost $475 billion over ten years. The House Committee on Education & the Workforce suggests an even higher figure, potentially making it the “costliest regulation in U.S. history.”

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be informed of the latest legal updates.

Unintended Consequences and Critical Voices

A Dubious Safety Net

Nat Malkus, deputy director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, warns of unintended consequences. He suggests that these changes could transform income-driven repayment plans into a hybrid loan-grant system, a far cry from Congress’s original intentions.

The Mask of Loan Forgiveness

While widespread loan forgiveness might provide a temporary solution, critics argue that it masks the more profound issues plaguing the soaring costs of higher education. Moreover, it may inadvertently exacerbate the problem.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post ‘Tis the Season for Biden’s Costly Holiday Gift: The SAVE Program first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President Joe Biden is poised to introduce a long-anticipated rule from the US Labor Department that promises to expand the scope of retirement advice subjected to rigorous fiduciary standards under federal benefits laws. This rule, set to be unveiled on Tuesday, addresses existing loopholes within the US Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation Best Interest, particularly concerning commodities and insurance products like annuities. The proposed rule aims to safeguard one-time advice for rolling over assets from Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans into non-ERISA plans like IRAs, while protecting workers’ retirement assets from conflicted investment advice.

Closing Loopholes and Enhancing Consumer Protection

The proposed rule represents a crucial step in eliminating hidden consumer fees and ensuring the security of retirement savings. By reshaping the financial industry’s role in the $10 trillion 401(k) market, the federal government aims to strengthen consumer protection. Over the past decade, numerous attempts to extend fiduciary standards across Wall Street have encountered limited success.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Challenging the Status Quo

Strict fiduciary standards pose a challenge to the business models of insurance companies and banking firms, particularly regarding the delivery of annuities and IRAs to clients transitioning from employer-sponsored 401(k)s or pensions. Under these standards, brokers and dealers could be prohibited from charging commissions, compelling them and their employers to adhere to more stringent oversight and disclosure exemption requirements.

Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su emphasizes the urgency of eliminating “junk fees” from the retirement savings market and ensuring that funds reach the pockets of workers and their families. The proposed rule seeks to provide working Americans with the peace and security they deserve in retirement.

Expanding the Definition of Fiduciary Investment Advice

This new rule introduces amendments to the 1975 regulation that initially defined fiduciary investment advice. It eliminates the second component of a five-part test that previously restricted fiduciary advice to those offering it “on a regular basis.” The significance of one-time advice cannot be understated, as it impacts approximately 5 million savers annually who transition their 401(k) savings into IRAs, as highlighted in a White House fact sheet.

In 2022, Americans rolled over an astounding $779 billion from defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s into IRAs, as reported by Cerulli Inc.

Strengthening Oversight and Limiting Exemptions

In addition to broadening fiduciary standards, the Department of Labor (DOL) plans to propose modifications to the exemptions that investment advisers use to charge fees for their services. The administration intends to streamline the number of available exemptions to just two and enhance regulatory oversight over advisers working with retirement plans and participants.

Make informed decisions in real time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

The Fourth Attempt at Expansion

The upcoming announcement will mark the fourth time since 2010 that the federal government has endeavored to expand fiduciary standards. Previous attempts faced challenges, with the Obama administration’s first effort abandoned under Wall Street pressure, and its second rule overturned by a US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel in 2018. A Trump-era exemption introduced a broader interpretation of the 1975 fiduciary definition, which was further clarified under the Biden administration but faced legal challenges in Florida and Texas.

The current regulatory package distinguishes itself by retaining the five-part test, which was discarded by the Obama-era rules. It also amends the regular-basis requirement, a factor that contributed to the failure of the most recent interpretation. Labor Department officials aim for a balanced approach that adheres to court precedents.

Prioritizing Client Interests

Fiduciary standards focus on investment advisers prioritizing their clients’ interests. Advocates argue that advisers earning commissions may have a financial incentive to promote riskier products with higher management fees, inferior market performance, and limited accessibility. However, critics contend that the commission model helps keep overall service costs down for retail investors, and a broader fiduciary rule could price out many workers and retirees seeking professional advice to achieve their retirement objectives.

The Fight Against “Junk Fees” Continues

The campaign against “junk fees” in the financial industry has been a central concern for President Biden. The Federal Trade Commission recently proposed a rule that would prohibit companies from misrepresenting their fees and require them to disclose any hidden charges, thereby fostering transparency and consumer trust.

Director of the National Economic Council, Lael Brainard, notes that when retirement savers pay for trusted advice that does not align with their best interests, it results in a “junk fee.” The proposed rule seeks to address these concerns and promote the financial security of Americans as they plan for their retirement.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post President Biden Unveils New Fiduciary Rule to Revolutionize Retirement Advice first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President Joe Biden has expressed his concern regarding a recent Supreme Court ruling that has raised the possibility of increased discrimination against LGBT Americans. The ruling, which addresses the constitutional right to free speech in relation to businesses refusing services for same-sex weddings, has ignited a heated debate on the delicate balance between religious freedom and equal rights.

The Supreme Court justices, in a 6-3 decision divided along ideological lines, ruled in favor of Lorie Smith, a Denver-area web designer who cited her Christian beliefs in challenging a Colorado anti-discrimination law. The majority of justices argued that compelling Smith to create expressive original designs for same-sex weddings would violate her First Amendment rights. However, liberal justices expressed strong dissent, referring to the ruling as a “license to discriminate.”

President Biden, echoing the concerns of many equality advocates, has voiced apprehension about the potential consequences of this ruling. While the decision specifically pertains to expressive original designs, he fears that it could open the door to further discrimination against the LGBTQI+ community. This ruling arrives at a time when Republican legislators in conservative-leaning states are actively pursuing laws targeting the rights of transgender and other LGBT individuals.

See also: US Supreme Court’s Ruling in Web Designer Case Sparks Concerns for LGBT Rights

In response to these developments, President Biden has pledged to take action to safeguard the civil rights of all Americans. He has vowed to collaborate with federal agencies in enforcing existing laws that protect against discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Moreover, the President has affirmed his administration’s commitment to working closely with states across the country to resist any attempts to roll back civil rights protections that may arise in the wake of this Supreme Court ruling.

Get noticed by top law firms and sign up for LawCrossing now.

The implications of this ruling extend far beyond its immediate legal context, striking at the heart of the ongoing struggle for equal rights and inclusivity. The concern over potential discrimination against the LGBT community resonates with advocates who have long fought for equality. By addressing these concerns head-on, President Biden aims to reinforce the principles of fairness, justice, and equal treatment for all.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to monitor the developments surrounding LGBT rights. Stay informed about the latest news and updates on this important issue as the nation navigates the delicate balance between religious freedom, free speech, and the pursuit of equality. Together, we can work towards creating a society that embraces diversity and protects the rights of every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Biden Expresses Concern Over Supreme Court LGBT Rights Ruling and Potential Increase in Discrimination first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a major setback for President Joe Biden, the US Supreme Court has thrown out his plan to alleviate the burden of student debt on more than 40 million individuals. The court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines, favoring six Republican-led states that sued to challenge the program. This initiative considered one of Biden’s key proposals, was deemed to exceed the president’s power by the justices.

The student debt relief plan, estimated to cost $400 billion over a span of 30 years, aimed to significantly reduce the financial burden on borrowers. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing on behalf of the court, stated that the administration was overstepping its boundaries and “seizing the power of the legislature” by attempting to cancel such a substantial amount of student debt.

This ruling not only strips Biden of a notable accomplishment but also puts pressure on him to explore alternative methods of debt cancellation. The president may face renewed calls from lawmakers and advocates for loan relief to seek different legal justifications. As the resumption of student loan payments looms in late August, millions of individuals could find themselves falling behind on their debt obligations.

See also: Biden’s Student Loan Relief Plan in Chaos: Experts Suggest Untested Plan B

Despite the setback, proponents of the relief plan, such as US Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, remain hopeful. Warren emphasized that the fight is not over and urged Biden to utilize other tools at his disposal to address the issue of student debt.

Ready to find your next big challenge in the legal field? Look no further than BCG Attorney Search.

The dissenting opinion came from the three liberal justices who argued that the states lacked the legal standing to challenge the loan relief plan. They contended that Congress had authorized the forgiveness program and, therefore the court’s involvement was unnecessary. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenters, expressed concern that the court was exceeding its proper role in governing the nation.

This ruling reflects a trend of the conservative-dominated Supreme Court challenging Biden’s agenda on multiple fronts. The court previously prevented Biden from blocking evictions during the pandemic and mandating Covid vaccines or regular tests for workers. Additionally, the justices have curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to address climate change and protect wetlands.

Under Biden’s proposal, certain borrowers earning less than $125,000 per year ($250,000 for households) would have been eligible for the forgiveness of up to $20,000 in federal loans. However, critics, including Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, argued that the plan unfairly penalized those who had already paid off their loans, saved for college, or pursued different career paths.

The Biden administration had maintained that the student loan program was authorized under the 2003 Heroes Act, which grants the education secretary special powers in response to national emergencies. The act permits the secretary to “waive or modify” provisions to ensure that debtors are not financially worse off due to such emergencies. Chief Justice Roberts dismissed this argument, stating that the law did not provide the education secretary with the authority to overhaul the statute.

Roberts invoked the “major questions doctrine,” a legal concept employed by the current court to limit the power of federal agencies and departments. The doctrine requires clear congressional authorization before executive actions with significant political and economic ramifications can be undertaken.

The six states—Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina—along with two borrowers challenged the program in separate cases. The court determined that the borrowers lacked standing, but the states were granted standing due to the impact on the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA). MOHELA, a nonprofit entity created by the state, is required by law to contribute to a fund for public college projects. Roberts argued that the plan would harm MOHELA’s revenue, directly affecting its ability to support Missouri college students and consequently causing injury to the state itself.

However, Justice Kagan criticized this reasoning, asserting that the states had no personal stake in the loan forgiveness program. She characterized them as ideological plaintiffs who simply disagreed with the plan without suffering any direct harm as a result of the education secretary’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for Biden’s student loan relief efforts. As the president explores alternative avenues to address the issue, the fate of millions of borrowers and the future of student loan policies hang in the balance.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Student Loan Relief Plan: What It Means for Borrowers first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate confirmed one of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees, U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Brookman, to a U.S. district court judgeship in the Southern District of Indiana. Despite having two Republican senators, the Senate unanimously approved Brookman’s appointment on a voice vote, marking a rarity for the Democratic president’s judicial nominees. Of 119 confirmed judicial nominees, only two others did not require roll call votes and were unanimously approved by voice vote.

In comparison, during Republican President Donald Trump’s presidency, 26 of his 92 appointments received voice votes at this point in his tenure, according to data collected by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It is noteworthy that just 10 of Biden’s 87 confirmed district court appointments come from states with one or more Republican senators, which progressive advocates argue points to the need to bring an end to the Senate’s “blue slip” tradition.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has traditionally required senators to return “blue slips,” named for the color of the paper forms, supporting district court nominees from their home states for them to advance. The panel’s Republican leadership eliminated the requirement for blue slips for appellate court nominees during Trump’s tenure. Progressive groups like Demand Justice and the American Constitution Society have argued that maintaining the “blue slip” tradition has allowed Republicans to obstruct Biden from nominating new judges in their states to fill vacancies.

However, while Senator Dick Durbin, the committee’s Democratic chair, has said he would not honor a blue slip that discriminates based on race, gender, or sexual discrimination, he has stood by the tradition and urged bipartisan cooperation. At a hearing in January, Durbin held out Brookman as a rare example during Biden’s tenure of two Republicans working with the White House to successfully name a judge and thanked GOP Senators Todd Young and Mike Braun of Indiana for doing so.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Brookman had worked for decades as a federal prosecutor, first in Missouri in 1999 and later in Indiana from 2002 to 2016, when he became a federal magistrate judge. At a January hearing, Young called Brookman an example of a nominee with “the potential for broad bipartisan support.” Biden announced plans to nominate Brookman in late December, and his nomination moved swiftly through the Democratic-led Senate.

In recent years, the confirmation of judicial nominees has become increasingly politicized. Senate Republicans blocked many of President Barack Obama’s nominees, and Senate Democrats returned the favor during Trump’s tenure, setting up a contentious and often bitter battle over the future of the judiciary.

While Brookman’s appointment demonstrates a rare example of bipartisan cooperation in judicial appointments, it remains to be seen whether this will be a trend in the future. The Biden administration has made judicial nominations a priority, and the confirmation of these nominees will significantly impact the direction of the judiciary in the years to come.

The post Biden’s Uncommon Judicial Nominee from a GOP-controlled State Confirmed by Senate first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The future of President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is uncertain as the US Supreme Court considers whether the education secretary has the power to forgive debts for 40 million Americans under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act. The Biden administration has a backup plan if the court strikes down the program. Michael Connelly, an attorney for student loan borrowers challenging the relief, said that the administration would try again using the authority provided by the Higher Education Act (HEA) and follow the proper notice and comment rulemaking process.

Legal scholars are still determining if the education act is a valid Plan B. Using the HEA raises many unanswered questions, including what would happen to student debts in the interim, whether it would survive another legal challenge, and whether it would be worth the effort with a presidential election less than a year away.

Boston-based attorney Adam Minsky said there is a provision in the education law that grants the education secretary broad authority to “compromise, waive, or release” federal student loan obligations. The Education Department recently invoked the HEA in agreeing to discharge some federal loans as part of a class action settlement. However, the law has never been used for an overall cancellation plan.

Dalié Jiménez, a professor and director of the Student Loan Law Initiative at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, said it is unclear if the government could bypass specific notice and comment rulemaking requirements. If it can’t, the rule could get stuck in the drafting stage long after the election.

Don’t leave money on the table. Make sure you’re earning what you’re worth by checking out LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The Education Department is also facing a lawsuit from an online lender that wants people to start paying student loans again. SoFi Bank and SoFi Lending Corp., which offer federal student loan borrowers private funding to refinance their loans, allege it was unlawful for Biden to extend the freeze on payments while its forgiveness plan is being prosecuted. The companies say the moratorium has hurt their bottom line.

Tara Grove, a federal courts and constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said political campaign managers must determine what will most appeal to voters. The administration may decide it has no other choice but to try again. The alternative would be to reinstate payments while working on a rule, which may be worse. Luke Herrine, an assistant professor and expert in student loan law at the University of Alabama School of Law, said the Education Department should start canceling debts with its HEA authority and not wait to be sued.

In conclusion, the future of President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is still being determined as legal scholars debate the validity of using the HEA as a backup plan. While the program faces a Supreme Court challenge, the Education Department also faces a lawsuit from an online lender that wants people to start paying student loans again. The Biden administration must consider what will be most appealing to voters as it navigates the legal and political hurdles of providing relief to student loan borrowers.

The post Biden’s Student Loan Relief Plan in Chaos: Experts Suggest Untested Plan B first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President Joe Biden has appointed the dean of the University of Virginia (UVA) Law School, Risa Lauren Goluboff, to the Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise. Goluboff, the first female dean in UVA Law School’s history, will serve an eight-year term on the committee. Congress established the committee in 1955 after the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., bequeathed a portion of his estate to the United States in 1935. The committee’s purpose is to document and disseminate the history of the United States Supreme Court.

Goluboff is a legal historian focusing on the historical development of American constitutional and civil rights law in the 20th century. She said that it is a beautiful honor to accept the appointment and that she looks forward to helping to document the history of the Supreme Court through this vital work.

The Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise is responsible for publishing a multi-volume work documenting the history of the Court. The committee’s principal purpose is to continue this work. Goluboff will work alongside Professor and dean emeritus Trevor Morrison of NYU, who was appointed to the committee. Morrison teaches and writes about constitutional law and the federal courts and serves as Of Counsel to Kaplan Hecker & Fink.

The Supreme Court has a rich and fascinating history that is well worth studying. The Court plays a critical role in the American legal system, and its decisions have far-reaching implications for the country. The Court’s decisions have impacted everything from civil rights and free speech to the balance of power between the branches of government. The Court’s history is also an essential part of American history, and studying it can help us better understand the country’s development over time.

Get ahead of the competition by submitting your resume to LawCrossing – don’t wait any longer!

In conclusion, the appointment of Dean Goluboff and Professor Morrison to the Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise is a significant development. It highlights the importance of studying the history of the Supreme Court and the critical role that the Court has played in shaping American law and society. It is hoped that the committee’s work will continue to shed light on the Court’s history and help us better understand the country’s development over time.

The post Biden Taps Top Law School Dean for Supreme Court Committee first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President Joe Biden has renominated Jabari Wamble, a former Kansas prosecutor, to become a district court judge in Kansas. Last year, Wamble was nominated by Biden to a seat on a federal appeals court, but his nomination had lapsed with the end of the prior Congress. While the White House did not renominate the two other judicial nominees whose nominations had lapsed, it did not rule out renominating Wamble.

Wamble, the son-in-law of Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, was picked by Biden in August to become the first Black judge from Kansas on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, he is now being nominated to become a district court judge in Kansas after “further consideration and conversation with Mr. Wamble regarding his interests and experience,” according to a White House official. The official added that the President is proud to put Wamble forward and believes he would be an excellent addition to the federal bench in Kansas.

Biden has nominated 157 federal judicial nominees since taking office in January 2021. Most of the nominees have been women and people of color, in keeping with a pledge to diversify the federal judiciary.

Wamble, a federal prosecutor since 2011, is married to Marissa Cleaver, the daughter of Kansas City congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who was an early supporter of Biden in his 2020 presidential campaign. However, neither Cleaver’s office nor Wamble responded to requests for comment.

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not take up Wamble’s 10th Circuit nomination before it lapsed. As a district court nominee, his nomination will be subject to a committee requirement that his two home state senators return “blue slips” supporting his nomination for him to be considered. Republican Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas spoke positively of Wamble last year, saying he had “demonstrated legal skill and interest in justice throughout his professional career.” However, fellow Republican Senator Roger Marshall never committed to supporting him, telling the Kansas City Star in January that he was waiting to see how the American Bar Association approached Wamble. The association has yet to rate him.

In addition to Wamble, Biden has nominated Colorado-based U.S. Magistrate Judge Kato Crews to a district court position and Molly Silfen, an associate solicitor in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, to a 15-year term on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

REFERENCES:

Biden nominates lawmaker’s son-in-law to bench again, but to lower court

The post Biden Nominates Son-in-Law of Lawmaker for Lower Court Position first appeared on JDJournal Blog.