Justice Amy Coney Barrett gave her judgment in the case of Haaland v. Brackeen on Thursday. This case contested the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which permitted Native American children to stay with their families during custody disputes.
Texas was one of the petitioners who brought legal action against the federal government.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Delivers Opinion
The petitioners argued that the law violated state and federal constitutional rights by using racial classifications that unlawfully prevent non-Indian families from fostering or adopting Indian children.
They also claimed that the law went beyond the scope of federal authority and interfered with state sovereignty.
The law was upheld by the court, which concluded 7-2 that none of Texas’ complaints had any merit.
Standing, or the question of whether plaintiffs actually have the right to suit, became important in this case and will likely play a key role in the court’s judgment about student debt relief.
At the two lawsuits’ oral arguments in February, which halted the implementation of Biden’s proposal to cancel up to $20,000 in college debt for federal students, standing dominated the justices’ lines of inquiry.
In order for a plaintiff to establish that they have the legal right to file a lawsuit, they must demonstrate that they will suffer harm as a result of the policy, that harm can be linked directly to the defendant, and that the remedies they are seeking would adequately address those harms.
Supreme Court Weighs State Lawsuits
Six GOP-led states filed Biden v. Nebraska, one of the lawsuits, claiming that the relief will negatively affect the earnings of MOHELA, or the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a student loan provider.
In Texas, parents were suing the government on their behalf. The issue of standing still exists even if the student loan instance is unquestionably different from that one.
This theory has been used to find standing for, for example, states that are challenging particular federal policies, like the EPA policies, or policies that might have harm to the welfare of their citizens or business practices that are harming a certain part of the community, David Nahmias, a staff attorney with the UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice, told Insider.
That hypothesis played a role in Barrett’s decision to reject Texas’ allegations.
Read more: Congressman from Republican Party Calls Out Party Members Defending Donald Trump
