Archive by Author

Lightfoot takes on underdog role again in Chicago mayor's race

Lori Lightfoot, who defied expectations four years ago to win the Chicago mayoral race as a political outsider, finds herself once again the underdog as she seeks to fend off multiple challengers in a tough reelection bid.

The city’s top executive is facing a crowded field of eight other candidates. Though Lightfoot campaigned as a reformer in 2019, voters are signaling they might be ready for another fresh start, and she finds herself trailing some of her rivals in recent polls.

Should she fail to become one of the top two vote-getters in Tuesday’s primary, she could become the first incumbent Chicago mayor in more than three decades to lose an election.

“She’s an underdog this time around for different reasons than she was an underdog last time,” said longtime political operative Victor Reyes, who is supporting challenger Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.) but not advising him.

“Last time, she was an unknown and she was the counter to the traditional political establishment folks, and the vote split was happening in a different way back then. And this time, she’s like the target of everybody’s ire, right?” Reyes continued. “She’s getting attacked from the left; she’s getting attacked from the right. And she doesn’t have any ground footing with any significant solid base of votes.”

Multiple polls over the past month have shown Lightfoot either tied with or trailing a mix of the other three frontrunners: García; former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas; and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson. Still, Lightfoot is no stranger to being counted out. During the 2019 Chicago mayoral race, she polled as low as in the single digits ahead of that year’s February primary and surprised many when she made it into the runoff that year along with Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. 

But the reformer candidate who broke barriers as the first Black woman and first openly gay candidate to be elected as Chicago’s mayor is facing a steep path to reelection as she battles perceptions that she’s too combative along with concerns over crime and public safety.

Lightfoot’s campaign argues she has the support be reelected.

“Under Mayor Lightfoot’s leadership, Chicago has made progress like this city has never seen before,” Lightfoot campaign spokeswoman Hannah Goss said in a statement. “In just four years, she has spurred economic development in every corner of the city — not just downtown. The Mayor has secured record investments in affordable housing, expanded access to mental health services, raised the minimum wage to $15, made key reforms to our police department — and more.”

Twyla Blackmond Larnell, an assistant professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago, argued that identity politics are playing a significant role in the race, and that while Lightfoot has courted Black and white voters in the past, it’s not clear if she has their support.

“And so my question has always been who’s going to turn out to vote for [Lightfoot] in this election, at least … vote for her enough to get her to the runoff?” Larnell said.

Lightfoot appeared to nod toward that question while speaking to voters last weekend.

“Any vote coming out of the South Side for somebody not named Lightfoot is a vote for Chuy García or Paul Vallas,” she said, according to footage from NBC5 Chicago. 

She later walked back those statements following criticism for the remarks. “If I said anything other than everybody everywhere needs to vote then I misspoke in the heat of a campaign rally,” she said.

At the same time, Vallas, García and Johnson are not without their own challenges ahead of next Tuesday. Lightfoot, for example, has sought to portray Vallas as a Republican — an insult in the heavily blue city of Chicago — and has pointed to his endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police. News coverage has also reported on Vallas’s donors, some of whom have given to Republicans in the past.

A spokesperson for Vallas’s campaign suggested those attacks “show a little bit of desperation” and noted that “the facts of it are pretty straightforward: He’s a lifelong Democrat, he’s run for public office multiple times, even statewide office, as a Democrat. He is completely pro-choice and has publicly said that he would make sure that Chicago remains a reproductive safe haven.”

Meanwhile, Lightfoot has sought to tie García to FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and disgraced former state House Speaker Mike Madigan (D) in one of her earlier ads.

The Chicago Tribune noted that Bankman-Fried donated $2,900 to the congressman’s campaign while more than $150,000 was spent by a political action committee with ties to the FTX founder to support García’s reelection efforts. More recently, the Tribune reported that an unidentified member of Congress referenced in court documents related to a probe involving Madigan is García himself.

García’s campaign has said that the congressman donated the direct contribution from Bankman-Fried, and the congressman has publicly said he was not involved with the independent expenditure that was made outside his campaign. The campaign also told the Tribune that he is not involved in the Madigan probe or any other related probe. No wrongdoing has been alleged against him.

“Because Lori Lightfoot has no accomplishments of her own to tout, she has resorted to phony, desperate attacks on the Congressman to distract from the fact she has failed to keep Chicagoans safe and has failed to reform city government as she once promised,” García campaign spokesperson Antoine Givens said in a statement to The Hill. 

In a sign that Ligthfoot views Johnson as a possible contender, Lightfoot also released an ad targeting the Cook County commissioner’s previous comments in which he voiced support for defunding the police — an attack line often used by Republicans against Democrats but less often seen among intraparty disputes. 

Johnson would not say directly whether he would cut spending from the Chicago Police Department, noting instead he would be “investing in what works.” But the Cook County commissioner also accused Lightfoot’s and former Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administrations of defunding city services and institutions.

“She’s not an underdog, she’s a disappointment,” Johnson told The Hill.

“This administration [and] the previous administration have moved on the defunding of all of the critical services that the people of Chicago not only rely upon but deserve,” Johnson said. “I am running to become the investor-in-chief.”

Still, observers argue not to count her out. 

Dick Simpson, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois Chicago who’s long been a fixture in Chicago politics, explained he was supporting her because “she did carry out the ethics of good government reforms.”

“And she is a pragmatic progressive who’s carrying out the agenda of issues like Invest South/West affordable housing, balanced economic development,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin says remarks on not running for president were made ‘in jest’

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Sunday said his earlier remarks that he wasn’t running for president were made “in jest.” 

“I’m not running for president of the United States. I can assure you of that as we sit here today,” Manchin said last week in a radio interview with MetroNews, but he backtracked in a new interview on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” 

“You have been in public service for 40 years. You told a radio interview this week that you will not be running for president. What are your plans? Will you run for reelection?” host Maria Bartiromo asked on Sunday.

“Well, the bottom line is, that was in jest. We were talking back and forth, a dear friend of mine, Hoppy Kercheval. We talked. And he said, this minute, this time, this and this,” Manchin replied, referring to the earlier interview.

“And I said, Hoppy, listen, my main concern — and to all of you and all of your viewers, my main concern is, how do we bring this country together? How do we make it work? How do we make Democrats, Republicans become Americans again, and not just party affiliates? And we’re pushing people further apart, making people take a side, and then we’re rewarding for bad behavior.” 

Pressed on Sunday whether the centrist still identifies as a Democrat, Manchin said he’ll “be involved any way I can to help” and that he identifies “as an American.” 

Manchin is up for reelection to his Senate seat next year, he said last week. He has in the past declined to rule out a run for the White House, and hasn’t said whether he’ll run for another Senate term. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden says he has ‘other things to finish’ before starting ‘full-blown’ 2024 campaign

President Biden said in a new interview that he has “other things to finish” before starting a “full-blown” 2024 presidential campaign.

“Well, apparently, someone interviewed my wife today, I heard. I gotta call her and find out,” Biden told ABC News’s David Muir when asked if he’s running again.  

“No, all kidding aside, my intention… has been from the beginning to run, but there’s too many other things I have to finish in the near-term before I start a campaign,” Biden said. 

The president has long said he intends to run for another four years in the White House, and first lady Jill Biden gave a strong indication last week that he’ll do so.

“He says he’s not done.” she said during a trip to Kenya.

“I meant what I said. I’ve got other things to finish before I get into a full-blown campaign,” President Biden said on ABC News. 

Biden hasn’t formally announced any official plans to run for president, but the first lady and Biden’s former chief of staff, Ron Klain, have both hinted that an announcement could be soon. 

Progressive Marianne Williamson entered the presidential race last week, making her the first high-profile Democrat who could face Biden in a primary showdown. 

On the Republican side, former President Trump and his former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley have both announced presidential campaigns.

Source: TEST FEED1

How Jimmy Carter became a post-White House progressive hero

Jimmy Carter’s post-presidential life outshined the time he spent at the White House and won him the praise of the progressive left — a more dominant part of the Democratic Party 42 years after the end of his presidency.

Carter, 98, is a figure beloved by many Democrats in 2023 despite the difficulties of his administration. He’s respected for creating a footprint as a global humanitarian and peacebuilder in a bitterly divided world. 

To liberals, his imprint on their movement is especially profound.  

“President Carter promoted progressive issues well before they became mainstream,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, a grassroots group that formed with Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) first presidential campaign. “His continued interest in public service laid the groundwork for modern day activists to take up causes from environmental justice to workers rights to universal health care.” 

While Carter’s reputation as a one-term president is marred by persistent domestic and international turbulence and what critics denounce as unsteady leadership, his community service is widely considered altruistic and urgent.  

It has allowed for a quiet rebranding of the 39th president’s legacy that is unique in American history.   

Progressives feel a particular bond to his efforts.  

“I love the guy,” said Cenk Uygur, host of the left-wing televised program “The Young Turks,” who’s had numerous conversations with Carter. “I think he’s the most misunderstood president.”  

Some of what liberal Democrats regard as Carter’s more palatable priorities, especially putting climate justice and the risks of foreign fuel dependence on the nation’s consciousness, align with much of what they’re pushing for today.

“Though we don’t agree with all of his policy positions, he was well ahead of his time on the now-urgent need to protect the environment and expand the social safety net,” said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party.  

Carter’s humble beginnings as an unpolished, unpretentious peanut farmer in Georgia make him an unlikely occupant of the nation’s highest office and a sympathetic figure to the left.  

Symbolically, parts of Carter’s personal identity and unorthodox approach are mirrored by some of today’s leading progressive figures. He’s also set the groundwork for dozens of insurgent candidates from working-class roots to enter government.  

Before then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) defeated the entire Democratic field in the Iowa caucuses, and before Sanders gave Hillary Clinton a real run for her money in the 2016 Democratic primary, Carter pulled off a better-than-expected placing in the same rural early nominating contest.  

“In his post-presidency, he pushed the establishment of the Democratic Party to think outside of the D.C. bubble,” said Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn. “His legacy of progressive people-first policies is enduring.”  

That reimagined model of campaigning and vision for what is possible, some argue, has fueled the aspirations of many under the modern progressive tent, where underrepresented candidates can ascend through unconventional means and test-run new ideas. 

Back when the country was still reeling from Watergate and the end of the Nixon era, Carter had an alternative approach to addressing the country’s woes, including an affinity for southern-style retail politics. He convinced enough voters to give a relatively unknown governor a shot at the White House, and ultimately won the Democratic primary against the odds, fueled in part by the momentum of his local start.  

“Jimmy Carter was really one of the first grassroots presidents,” said Epting. “His election in 1976 was the end of top-down primaries. It was a watershed moment for elevating the people’s voice.”  

Carter’s ability to attract praise later in life from both liberals and moderates, including President Biden, after a shaky presidency makes him an anomaly. 

“Jimmy Carter’s legacy is complex and doesn’t fit neatly into contemporary ideological frames,” said Mitchell. “Carter led with his instincts regardless of the political consequences.” 

Carter is a progressive from a different era and time, and his policies when he served in the White House don’t all pass liberal muster in today’s climate — at least for some.  

“After leaving office, he was wonderfully progressive, but while in office he was too economically conservative,” Uygur said.  

His presidency was dogged by inflation and many criticized his approach to the economy and unemployment.  

His tenure was notably marked by the Iran hostage crisis, a traumatic event for Americans living through that era. 

But he also had major foreign policy successes, including with the Camp David peace accords with Egypt and Israel.  

“He was terrific in foreign policy in an underrated way,” Uygur argued. “He literally did peace in the Middle East and got Israel and Egypt a peace deal that has lasted decades.” 

The former president and Nobel Peace Prize awardee has in later years coalesced global support around democracy reforms through the Carter Center and significant contributions to the house building movement through Habitat for Humanity. Progressives say he has also made a lasting impact on public health.   

“His post-presidency life was an exercise in service and selflessness. He was outspoken on injustice in the U.S. and abroad and was among a small group of public officials that were willing to be on the record when naming those injustices were inconvenient,” Mitchell said.  

“All lives and presidencies are complex and Carter’s was no different. However, his commitment to living in a more just, environmentally sustainable world will live on,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1

National security adviser: No ‘definitive answer’ on COVID lab leak

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday responded to a new Wall Street Journal report that found the Department of Energy has concluded the COVID-19 pandemic most likely developed from a lab leak, saying there’s “no definitive answer” on the question. 

“Here’s what I can tell you. President Biden has directed, repeatedly, every element of our intelligence community to put effort and resources behind getting to the bottom of this question,” Sullivan said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“If we gain any further insight or information, we will share it with Congress, and we will share it with the American people. But right now, there is not a definitive answer that has emerged from the intelligence community on this question,” the national security adviser said. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Energy Department, armed with “new intelligence,” now thinks the virus emerged from a laboratory mishap in China, joining the FBI in that conclusion, while other agencies think the pandemic was the result of natural transmission. According to the report, the Energy Department’s conclusion was made with “low confidence.”

Sullivan said Sunday there are a “variety of views” on the question of COVID-19 origins within the intelligence community, and stressed that some “just don’t have enough information to be sure.”

Source: TEST FEED1

EPA temporarily halts removal of contaminated waste from East Palestine derailment

The federal government has ordered a temporary halt to the shipment of contaminated waste from the site of the train derailment in eastern Ohio that has prompted environmental and public health concerns.

Federal authorities paused shipments of waste out of East Palestine, Ohio, on Saturday. Norfolk Southern, the company that owns the train that derailed, had been responsible for relocating the waste. But other states raised concerns last week that they weren’t warned about receiving the waste, and the Environmental Protection Agency stepped in. 

“Everyone wants this contamination gone from the community,” the EPA’s Region 5 administrator, Debra Shore, said, according to The Associated Press. “They don’t want the worry, and they don’t want the smell, and we owe it to the people of East Palestine to move it out of the community as quickly as possible.”

Officials in Michigan and Texas last week pushed back against the plan by the company to relocate some of the waste to areas in their states. Now, any relocation of the waste will have to go through the EPA for approval.

“EPA will ensure that all waste is disposed of in a safe and lawful manner at EPA-certified facilities to prevent further release of hazardous substances and impacts to communities,” Shore said.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s (R) office said that 15 truckloads of contaminated soil had been disposed of at a hazardous waste facility in Michigan. Other waste that was already trucked out of East Palestine would be stored at a facility in Texas.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), who represents a district where some of the waste was slated to be shipped, said that there was no advance notice of the plan.

“We were not given a heads up on this reported action. Our priority is to always keep the people we represent safe,” she said in a statement.

The Biden administration has been sharply criticized for its response to the disaster. The cleanup and disposal of waste is continuing weeks after the original crash, which forced residents to evacuate.

Source: TEST FEED1

Advocates say Biden's asylum rule is a Trump deja vu

The Biden administration is barreling towards a legal fight with immigration groups after rolling out a new asylum policy similar to a Trump-era directive already struck down by the courts. 

The tussle between the administration and its would-be allies on immigration has been brewing for years, but it hit a head Tuesday, when the administration unveiled a proposed rule taking two big hits at the asylum system.

The proposal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks to geographically contain asylum-seekers by pushing them to pursue protection in another country along their journey.

It also restricts where those who arrive at the U.S. border can make the claim — barring the process for those crossing between ports while also imposing new limitations for those who present themselves at official points of entry. 

The administration contends that the changes to the policies, along with the rollout of a new program for those who secure sponsors to come to the U.S., are a legal and necessary approach as it prepares to lift ongoing pandemic-era restrictions at the border. 

But to immigration advocates, it’s a mashup of two policies from the administration of former President Trump that they successfully challenged in court, and that, even with tweaks, contravene U.S. protections for asylum-seekers.

“We do not think that this proposed rule is lawful. The changes that were made are largely cosmetic,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who led arguments in a case that toppled similar Trump administration policies.

“The additional requirements suggested by the proposed rule would not be consistent with our domestic or international asylum laws. So if this rule is enacted, we will be back in court,” Gelernt said.

The two sides’ fundamental disagreement lies in their view of the asylum system’s role in the global mass migration phenomenon.

Advocates and many Democrats view asylum as a legitimate tool for migrants to seek refuge in the United States, whether or not they fit the traditional definition of asylum-seekers and refugees. 

“There are any number of reasons that people fleeing violence, persecution, and other situations may not be able to avail themselves of other options,” Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.) said in a statement. 

“To punish them for not being able to apply for asylum via an app or not being able to first exhaust a claim in a third country is wrong,” she added. “It goes against our values as a country and against the spirit of our asylum laws.”

Biden officials want to reduce the number of people who use asylum as a pathway to enter the U.S., though the administration’s immediate concern is to reduce foot traffic at the border, both for political and logistical reasons.

They are bracing for the end to Title 42, a law that uses public health as ground for allowing the swift removal of migrants without letting them seek asylum, something the Trump administration first rolled out shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Administration officials say the number of those seeking to cross the border could reach 13,000 a day once the policy is lifted in May. 

Administration officials also say the asylum reforms will help combat human smuggling, which has thrived under the existing system.

Advocates contend that restrictions create black markets and point to programs such as the administration’s parole program as better ways to starve the illicit industry of clientele.

“This ban — a policy already deemed illegal by our courts — will not deter people who are seeking asylum from coming to the U.S. Instead, it will strip the most vulnerable individuals and families of their rights under U.S. and international law by permitting their rapid return to the danger they are running from,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

“Alternatively, migrants would need to resort to the very smugglers the administration flags as a concern. This, and so much of the justification in this proposed policy, read like an upside-down version of asylum law,” Salas added.

Administration officials, like many of their predecessors, are quick to blame congressional inaction on immigration for the lack of good options, offering a lukewarm defense when announcing the rule Tuesday.

“To be clear, this was not our first preference or even our second,” a senior administration official told reporters.

But the executive branch and immigration advocates outside it prioritize different aspects of asylum law. The administration seeks to process claimants with a strong case to ultimately win asylum; advocates defend the fundamental right to seek asylum, regardless of the strength of the claim.

Though the policy includes some provisions that water down the rule when compared to Trump-era versions, advocates say it would still violate two fundamental provisions of asylum law that helped them win their first suit.

“The basic, fundamental tenet of asylum law is if you get to safe territory, no matter how you get there — documents, no documents; between ports or at a port — you must be given a screening for asylum. And so the Biden administration is disfavoring people who cross between ports, but that law Congress passed does not allow that,” Gelernt said.

And Gelernt said the law also specifically addresses the latest effort to make asylum-seekers first apply elsewhere.

“Congress envisioned this situation and said, ‘You have to have a formal agreement with that third country, and you have to have assurances that that third country can actually provide safe and full asylum hearings,’” he added. 

The new asylum restrictions are designed to channel different groups of migrants into distinct paths to request entry into the United States.

The Biden administration has rolled out a new parole program for Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan nationals, who, if they can secure a financial sponsor, can pursue permission to enter the U.S for two years by first applying through the CBP One app.

But the new proposal would mean those who cannot secure a sponsor — as well as asylum-seekers from any other country — are directed to request asylum in another country they passed through on their way to the United States. It’s a provision that harkens back to the so-called transit ban first rolled out under the Trump administration.

Under former President Trump, immigration advocates were able to successfully challenge this in part by highlighting the limitations on asylum systems in Central America, noting at the time that Guatemala had just a handful of asylum officers for the whole country.

The policy would largely block those who don’t first seek asylum elsewhere from making such claims in the U.S. But even so, those who do arrive would be expected to seek an appointment at the border through the CBP One app, which has been plagued with tech difficulties and is a barrier for those who may struggle to secure internet access.

Even so, it’s not clear that all who apply will be able to secure a time slot, and those who show up without an appointment will be presumed to be ineligible for asylum.

“You can have two people arrive at a port of entry with the exact same asylum claim, but one person has a pre-arranged appointment via the CBP One app, and the other person does not. And the person that doesn’t have that pre-arranged appointment via the app will be held to a higher standard to prove their asylum claim with some narrow exceptions,” said Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Counsel. “So we’re really relying on technology to put people into different buckets to determine what standard and what process is going to apply to them.”

Gelernt said the administration’s suggestion that the proposal is designed to stem irregular crossings isn’t showing the full impact if the rule were to take place.

“The administration is trying to suggest that this new rule would apply only to people who cross between ports of entry. That’s not true,” he said.

“Because if you show up at a port of entry, and you don’t have an appointment from the app, and you didn’t apply in a third country, you’re going to be turned away.”

Source: TEST FEED1

How the Biden administration will try to save its student loan relief plan at the Supreme Court

President Biden’s student loan relief plan faces a do-or-die moment on Tuesday as it reaches the Supreme Court for oral arguments. 

The up to $20,000 in debt relief that could go to millions of Americans faces two challenges: one from six Republican-led states, Biden v. Nebraska, and another from two student loan borrowers, Department of Education v. Brown. 

Biden’s plan to save one of his biggest campaign promises hinges on two arguments. 

The administration says that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona had the authority to forgive the debt under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act.

But legal observers suggest the closer question could be whether the justices reach the merits at all. The Biden administration contends that neither group of challengers has standing, meaning the legal capacity to sue.

With the lower courts placing the plan on hold, the Biden administration now must face a conservative-majority Supreme Court in its efforts to give borrowers relief. 

Here is what you need to know about the legal issues in the two student debt relief cases:

What is the HEROES Act?

The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students, or HEROES, Act has only recently come back into focus, but it was passed two decades ago with bipartisan support as the country headed to war following the 9/11 terror attacks.

The law gives the education secretary authority to “waive or modify” federal student financial assistance programs “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

The Trump administration began using HEROES Act authority to pause student loan payments after declaring the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency in 2020.

After Biden took office, his administration extended the emergency and the payment pause before announcing the debt relief plan last year. 

The administration has said the HEROES Act’s plain text authorizes Cardona to forgive the debts, and that his decision to do so was reasonable. He has put forward data showing that many borrowers are at risk of defaulting on their loans if the payment pause ends without the debt relief.

“The federal government provides relief to people affected by crises all the time, and that relief flows not just immediately after the crisis, but in the months and years afterwards,” said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer at the Public Rights Project, which filed a brief supporting the administration on behalf of local governments.

“So I think this is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate step for the Secretary to take, given all the information that was before him in the department at the time,” Miller added.

After the Supreme Court took up the challenges, Biden announced the COVID-19 emergency will end in May, but the administration says that doesn’t affect its debt relief plan.

Meanwhile, the administration has argued that ending the emergency moots a separate Supreme Court case involving Title 42, which limits migrants’ ability to seek asylum on public health grounds.

But the White House believes student debt relief is different because it concerns economic consequences that will persist beyond the emergency, rather than stopping the spread of disease, according to people familiar with the administration’s legal strategy.

“Our debt relief plan is needed to prevent defaults and delinquencies as student borrowers transition back to repayment after the end of the payment pause,” an administration official said. “The national emergency formally ending does not change that fact. It also does not change the legal justification for the plan.”

How have the courts ruled so far?

Federal appeals courts have blocked the plan in both cases pending further action by the Supreme Court.

In the challenge from the conservative states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina — a three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by Republican presidents, issued a temporary injunction in the fall. 

A federal trial judge in Texas ruled in favor of the individual challengers and separately blocked the debt relief plan in November. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld that ruling.

The Biden administration appealed both cases to the Supreme Court, and the justices agreed in December to take up both cases.

What do the plan’s opponents say?

Both groups of challengers contend Cardona overstepped his authority under the HEROES Act.

The individual borrowers argue he was required to provide a comment period on the proposal before implementing it.

Both groups argue the debt relief plan invokes the “major questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to decide matters of vast economic and political significance.

Echoing a lower court ruling, the plan’s critics assert that taking the administration’s position means the executive branch could cite the pandemic’s lingering effects even 10 years down the road to forgive the debts without consulting Congress.

“This case is not so much about the wisdom of that decision. It’s about in a democratic, self-governing society, how are we going to make these kinds of decisions?” said Casey Mattox, vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, which filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers.

The court has cemented the major questions doctrine in three recent cases: stopping the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction freeze during the pandemic, blocking the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers and striking down a power plant rule last June.

Thomas Berry, editor-in-chief of “Cato Supreme Court Review” at the Cato Institute, which filed an amicus brief siding with the challengers, said the precedents give a clear indication that a majority of the justices will be skeptical of the debt relief plan.

“If they reach the merits, I would be fairly confident that the action will be struck down,” Berry said. “I think the closer question is whether they reach the merits at all.”

Biden admin argues challengers lack standing to sue

The Biden administration believes none of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the debt relief.

Three states cited economic impacts from how some borrowers are now consolidating their loans, and four said their tax revenues will take a hit. 

Missouri shows perhaps the most compelling theory by arguing the plan will harm its student loan service, legal observers say, but the administration is likely to push back that any harm is still speculative.

“I just don’t think it really comports here, because it’s very clear that loan forgiveness ultimately is a net benefit for the states,” said Miller.

His group’s brief argues that forgiveness would make it easier for borrowers to start a business or own a home, spurring economic growth.

The two individual borrowers, who did not qualify for the relief, contend that they can bring their suit because Cardona’s failure to provide a comment period unfairly deprived them of a concrete interest.

The Biden administration asserts stopping the debt relief would not redress their injury, a component needed for standing.

“That judgment leaves Brown’s financial position unchanged; she would still receive no loan forgiveness,” the administration wrote in its brief. “And it would leave Taylor worse off than before; he would receive neither the $10,000 the plan provides nor the $20,000 he purports to seek, but instead nothing at all.”

Source: TEST FEED1

EPA orders 'pause' of derailment contaminated waste removal

EAST PALESTINE, Ohio (AP) — Federal environmental authorities have ordered a temporary halt in the shipment of contaminated waste from the site of a fiery train derailment earlier this month in eastern Ohio near the Pennsylvania state line.

Region 5 administrator Debra Shore of the Environmental Protection Agency said Saturday the agency ordered Norfolk Southern to “pause” shipments from the site of the Feb. 3 derailment in East Palestine but vowed that removal of the material would resume “very soon.”

“Everyone wants this contamination gone from the community. They don’t want the worry, and they don’t want the smell, and we owe it to the people of East Palestine to move it out of the community as quickly as possible,” Shore said.

Until Friday, Shore said, the rail company had been solely responsible for the disposal of the waste and supplied Ohio environmental officials with a list of selected and utilized disposal sites. Going forward, disposal plans including locations and transportation routes for contaminated waste will be subject to EPA review and approval, she said.

“EPA will ensure that all waste is disposed of in a safe and lawful manner at EPA-certified facilities to prevent further release of hazardous substances and impacts to communities,” Shore said. She said officials had heard concerns from residents and others in a number of states and were reviewing “the transport of some of this waste over long distances and finding the appropriate permitted and certified sites to take the waste.”

The Ohio governor’s office said Saturday night that of the twenty truckloads (approximately 280 tons) of hazardous solid waste hauled away, 15 truckloads of contaminated soil was disposed of at a Michigan hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility while five truckloads had been returned to East Palestine.

Liquid waste already trucked out of East Palestine would be disposed of at a licensed hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility in Texas, but that facility would not accept more liquid waste, the Ohio governor’s office said.

“Currently, about 102,000 gallons of liquid waste and 4,500 cubic yards of solid waste remain in storage on site in East Palestine, not including the five truckloads returned to the village,” the governor’s office said. “Additional solid and liquid wastes are being generated as the cleanup progresses.”

No one was injured when 38 Norfolk Southern cars derailed in a fiery, mangled mess on the outskirts of town, but as fears grew about a potential explosion due to hazardous chemicals in five of the rail cars, officials evacuated the area. They later opted to release and burn toxic vinyl chloride from the tanker cars, sending flames and black smoke billowing into the sky again.

Shore said the EPA was not involved in the decision to do the controlled burn, but she called it a “well-founded” decision by local and state officials based on the information they had at the time “to deal with a highly explosive toxic chemical.”

Federal and state officials have repeatedly said it’s safe for evacuated residents to return to the area and that air testing in the town and inside hundreds of homes hasn’t detected any concerning levels of contaminants from the fires or burned chemicals. The state says the local municipal drinking water system is safe, and bottled water is available while testing is conducted for those with private wells.

Despite those assurances and a bevy of news conferences and visits from politicians, many residents still express a sense of mistrust or have lingering questions about what they have been exposed to and how it will impact the future of their families and their communities.

Source: TEST FEED1