How do U.S. Supreme Court rulings on student loans, affirmative action, free speech impact CT?

A recent series of controversial rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on high-profile issues has sharply divided elected officials over the future impact of the rulings in Connecticut.

The decisions represent major developments on blocking forgiveness of student loans, the parameters of free speech, equal protection under the law, and affirmative action for colleges, among others.

Democrats have blasted the decisions by the high court’s 6-3 conservative majority, while many Republicans say that the rulings have been correct. Each side says the other side is politicizing the issue in an ongoing clash that is expected to continue as officials seek to comply with the ramifications of the complicated laws.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal and others say the rulings will have profound influence both now and for years to come.

“Every one of these decisions has immediate, urgent impact on Connecticut,” Blumenthal said in an interview. “The affirmative action decision is going to compel all of our higher education institutions to revise their diversity programs, using other tools that are clearly available to make their student bodies look like America. On the student debt forgiveness decision striking down President Biden’s program, Connecticut residents will be affected in their ability to buy homes, start businesses, and get married. The impact of these debts overhangs our entire state economy and the nation’s.”

Besides the recent decisions, Blumenthal says the general public’s views of the high court are also being shaped by last year’s decisions that overturned Roe v. Wade on abortion and expanded gun rights in a separate case.

“This Supreme Court is destroying its own legitimacy and credibility,” Blumenthal told The Courant in an interview. “It’s acting like a super legislature — answerable to no one. It is radically extreme and ethically blind, and the combination is toxic for our judiciary because credibility and integrity are the key to the Supreme Court’s power. … Clearly, it’s been making new law.”

But state Sen. Rob Sampson, a Wolcott Republican who is among the most conservative members of the state legislature, said he agrees strongly with the court’s rulings. Some previous rulings at both the federal and state levels had outraged conservatives, and he said they were criticized at the time as politically motivated in the same way as the recent rulings.

“Unlike Mr. Blumenthal, I happen to agree with the Supreme Court decisions in all of those cases,” Sampson said in an interview. “I think it’s ironic that Senator Blumenthal might think that this particular Supreme Court is acting in a politically motivated way. I would say that these recent decisions are more in keeping with the founding principles of the country than we have had in a long time. … I can certainly point to the gay marriage issue in the state of Connecticut. That was political activism, and I’m not even against gay marriage. The issue of gay marriage should have been decided in the legislature and not via that court case.”

House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford agreed with Sampson that the nation’s high court has been unjustly criticized on the decisions.

“They’re just criticizing the result for political points,” Candelora said in an interview. “Democrats politicize this court and peg them as Republicans.”

Candelora said he is concerned about people making snap judgements and then answering polls about the Supreme Court during a time of highly complex decisions with multiple nuances.

“I would say 99% of society or more have not read these rulings,” Candelora said in an interview.

Student loans

In a landmark ruling, the court decided that Biden, as president, lacked the authority to erase $10,000 from each student’s federal loans and as much as $20,000 for lower-income students who qualify for Pell grants. More than 40 million students and graduates could have benefitted from Biden’s package that was worth $400 billion.

But only Congress, the court ruled, holds the power to allocate funding, and no president can make a unilateral decision involving billions of dollars.

“That makes perfect sense to me,” Candelora said. “As someone in the legislature, the responsibility of the legislative branch is to allocate resources. The executive branch doesn’t have the authority to make policy and spend money without authority of the legislature. I think it’s a basic principle of our democracy. … Every legislator should be pleased with that decision because it’s restoring power in the democratic process. For any elected official to stand at a podium and say that authority should be ceded to a sitting president or governor, for that matter, is suggesting that we go to a monarchy.”

Candelora noted that former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had said that Congress — not Biden — had the power to act on student loans.

The court’s ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, specifically quoted Pelosi’s statement from July 2021 on the issue.

“People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness,” Pelosi had said at a news conference. “He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”

But Pelosi said after the court ruling that the battle for student relief will continue.

Concerning fairness, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the federal government routinely provides tax breaks for large businesses, citing Wall Street bailouts after the financial crash in 2008 and 2009 in order to help the struggling economy.

“People thought that wasn’t fair and that wasn’t right, but we had to do it to save our economy,” Tong said. “We did that for the banks that were failing in the last few months.”

Despite the court’s ruling, Tong said he still believes that Biden had the legal authority to forgive the loans.

“I think the president was well within his authority,” Tong said in an interview. “I think the executive branch has the authority to forgive those loans, but I’m not on the Supreme Court.”

Equal protection and the First Amendment

The justices also ruled that a Colorado woman could refuse to create wedding websites for gay couples, saying that her First Amendment right to free speech protected her from communicating issues that she personally opposed.

But Democrats were concerned that the case sets a precedent against the 14th amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law.

“It’s an upside-down view of the 14th Amendment that could impact anyone in Connecticut or elsewhere,” Blumenthal said in an interview. “It’s a rollback of constitutional rights. It is really unprecedented in its reversal of 14th amendment jurisprudence.”

Blumenthal gave the hypothetical example of a Little League team that wants to place a gay pride insignia on their team uniform, and the person or company making the uniforms says that is against their beliefs.

“It could have much broader implications than weddings or cakes or flowers,” Blumenthal said. “We could have a week-long series of law school classes on this [wedding] decision and how it might be interpreted if broadly viewed, just like the decisions on gun violence and affirmative action have broader potential impacts.”

Candelora — and the six justices in the majority — had a different view.

“I didn’t view that decision as an equal protection issue,” Candelora said. “It was allowing for freedom of speech. It’s a very narrow holding. … That decision had nothing to do with whether someone can discriminate against a protected class, ultimately. That decision spoke to freedom of speech for an individual. If I refuse to sell somebody a vehicle based on their sexual orientation or race or religion, that certainly is an equal protection argument. This had to do with an individual web designer who was arguably being coerced into putting speech on paper that they didn’t agree with.”

Tong said the battle is not over.

“Number one, people should know that Connecticut’s public accommodations laws remain in full force and effect. Period. Full stop,” Tong told The Courant. “We may be issuing some guidance on that at some point in the future, so stay tuned on that.”

Affirmative action

In another historic decision, the high court ruled that using affirmative action in making decisions on college admissions is unconstitutional, changing the law that had been in place for decades.

Despite an outcry from academics and students, Sampson said that the Supreme Court actually got it right.

“I have always held that racial discrimination is wrong. Period,” Sampson said. “Affirmative action has always been wrong because it’s based on racial discrimination. There has been a lot of contortions over the years to try to write policy about quotas without calling it quotas, and finally we have a Supreme Court that just doesn’t hold water as an argument. And I’m glad to see it.”

Tong, though, sharply disagreed.

“That’s just a tragic decision for students and Connecticut colleges and universities — public and private,” Tong said. “The fact is we’re preparing kids for a highly diverse, global marketplace, and now you’re going to try to hamstring their ability to learn with people of other cultures and religions and races and sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s just ridiculous. I think people are trying to figure out what the decision says and what it means, and I think that will develop over time.”

Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com