Explained | The U.S. student loan crisis and Joe Biden’s new cancellation plan

The story so far: United States President Joe Biden has already released a new plan to cancel billions in student loan debt after the conservative majority Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) in a 6-3 decision on June 30 blocked his ambitious plan to cancel $430 billion in debt.

Although Mr. Biden has said the alternative plan is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling, it could still face a legal challenge, while the fate of millions of American borrowers — who may have to start repaying their loans once a pause on repayment lifts — hangs in the balance.

How big is the U.S. student loan debt?

As per the latest Federal Reserve figures, more than 45 million Americans owe a total of $1.77 trillion in student debt to the U.S. government. As per the Congressional Research Service (CRS), approximately 63% of the U.S. population over the age of 25 has at some time enrolled in some level of higher education and roughly 17% of the country’s population aged 18 or above has federal student loans. Meanwhile, the median student loan debt is just above $17,000.

Research by the nonprofit College Board suggests that over the past three decades, the cost of higher education has risen sharply in the U.S., doubling at private four-year colleges and universities and rising even further at public four-year schools. Between 2006 and 2019, the outstanding balance of student loans has nearly quadrupled.

In the U.S., the federal government is the primary source of student loans, running several loan programmes to help students and their families finance higher education.

These loans are authorised under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). Under primary loan programmes, the U.S. government makes loans using federal capital, meaning funds from the U.S. Treasury Department, after which the outstanding loans become assets of the federal government.

What are repayment options for borrowers?

Once a student borrows a federal loan, they enter into a contractual obligation to repay the loan with interest. They can sign up for specific repayment plans, with repayment periods spanning a decade or more. Under a standard 10-year repayment plan, a borrower has to make 120 equal payments of principal and interest spread over a decade.

Then there are Income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, the kind that President Biden wanted to alter in order to cancel student debt. Such plans cap the monthly payment installments at a share of the borrower’s discretionary income, say 10%- 15%; extend the repayment period over a span of 20 or 25 years, and forgive or write off any unpaid principal and interest remaining after that period.

What was Mr. Biden’s original student debt cancellation plan?

The plan, announced in August 2022, was supposed to cancel $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 a year or households making less than $250,000. The recipients of the government’s Pell Grant, who usually need more financial assistance, were to get an additional $10,000 worth of their debt forgiven.

College students qualified if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan made 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million possibly having their debt erased entirely, according to the Biden administration.

The White House said 26 million people had applied for debt relief, and 16 million people already had their relief approved. As per the Congressional Budget Office, the program would cost about $400 billion over the next three decades.

The Education Department also proposed to improve the existing income-driven plan mentioned above, capping monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income, down from the current 10%. The administration claimed that the plan would mean lowering of the average annual student loan payment by more than $1,000 for both current and future borrowers.

Why did the plan run into trouble?

There were two legal challenges to the plan which landed in the Supreme Court—one involving six Republican-led States and the other filed by two students.

In the case filed by the students, they argued, among other things, that the Biden administration didn’t go through the proper process in enacting the plan. Texas-based U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, appointed by former President Donald Trump, opined that Mr. Biden overstepped his authority. To cancel the debt, the Biden government relied on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, commonly known as the HEROES Act, which was enacted in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack and allows the Secretary of Education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans during times of war or national emergency. The White House cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a national emergency.

The ruling, however, argued that the HEROES Act did not accord the Secretary the authority for mass debt cancellation. The judge said it only granted flexibility during national emergencies, adding that it was unclear whether debt cancellation was a necessary response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Mr. Biden had by then declared as over.

As for the suit by the six States— Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina— a lower court dismissed it, ruling that the States could not challenge the programme as they were unable to show that they wereharmed by it.

However, the case went to a panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, where all judges Republican President appointees, which put the programme on hold the next day. After this, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.

On June 30, SCOTUS held that the administration needs Congress’ endorsement before undertaking such a costly programme. The majority rejected arguments that the bipartisan 2003 HEROES Act gave Mr. Biden the power he claimed.

“Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by the court’s two other liberal judges, writing that the majority of the court “overrides the combined judgment of the Legislative and Executive Branches, with the consequence of eliminating loan forgiveness for 43 million Americans.”

What is the Biden administration’s new plan and what’s next for borrowers?

The president announced on the day of the Court ruling that the Education Secretary had initiated a new rulemaking process for the alternative plan, this time using the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act, 1965, the law governing most federal student loan programmes, as mentioned above.

“I’m announcing today a new path consistent with today’s ruling to provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible,” Biden said. “We will ground this new approach in a different law than my original plan, with the so-called Higher Education Ac,” the President said. The plan is also going to take longer as the actual process of negotiated rule making could take as far as fall this year.

While the President contends the new path is consistent with the Court’s opinion, legal scrutiny could be expected. Meanwhile, advocate and legal scholar Luke Herrine, an assistant professor of law at the University of Alabama, wrote in a 2019 paper that the “compromise and settlement” authority, a clause in the HEA, empowers the Secretary of Education with the broad authority to “compromise, waive, or release’’ federal student debt.

Instead of the current Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) plan, the income-driven plan Mr. Biden’s original programme sought to alter, the administration has proposed the new Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. “This income-driven repayment plan will cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half, allow many borrowers to make $0 monthly payments, and save all other borrowers at least $1,000 per year,” says the factsheet on the plan.

The specifics remain the same— requiring borrowers to pay half the current share of discretionary income at 5%. Instead of forgiving loan balances after 20 years of annual payments, this plan also forgivesoutstanding principal after 10 years. Additionally, the plan seeks to raise the amount of income that is considered non-discretionary and therefore is protected from repayment. As for borrowers currently facing uncertainty, the President says they will be able to enroll for SAVE later this summer, “before any monthly payments are due.” Borrowers who sign up or are already signed up for the REPAYE plan will be automatically enrolled.

Mr. Biden also announced an alternative to the pause on student loan repayments scheduled to restart at the end of the summer: a temporary 12-month “on-ramp” for repayment, from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, during which missed loan payments will not harm borrowers’ credit and the threat of default will be temporarily removed.

What are the arguments for and against broad loan cancellation?

Numerous federal student loan repayment and forgiveness programmes providing targeted relief to individuals in certain circumstances currently exist. However, proposals for broader-scale student loan debt relief—including cancellation of all or a portion of federal student loan debt—have gained considerable attention in recent years.

As the cost of education increases while wages stagnate, it has become harder for students to pay off their loans. Studies also point out how federal grants and scholarships have not kept pace with the increasing cost of education and attendance.

President Biden has explained the need for loan cancellation by arguing that higher education “should be a ticket to a middle-class life, but for too many, the cost of borrowing for college is a lifelong burden that deprives them of that opportunity.” A White House factsheet notes that middle-class American borrowers struggle with high monthly payments and “ballooning balances that make it harder for them to build wealth, like buying homes, putting away money for retirement, and starting small businesses.”

CRS Research also points to the composition of borrowers, of which “black students were more likely to borrow Title IV” HEA loans for undergraduate and graduate education “relative to any other racial or ethnic subgroup”. It also finds that certain groups of borrowers (Black, American Indian, and lower-income borrowers) have made less progress in paying down the original principal of debt when compared with other borrowers.

The government also noted how student debt burden falls disproportionately on Black borrowers. “Twenty years after first enrolling in school, the typical Black borrower who started college in the 1995-96 school year still owed 95% of their original student debt,” the White House factsheet on student debt reads.

On the other hand, critics of broad-based cancellation of loans point out how one-time loan cancellation may fail to address the underlying causes of crushing loan debt. One major cause is the skyrocketing cost of education and the need for an overhaul of the system. Another factor flagged by studies is the increasing availability and utilization of loan repayment plans that allow borrowers to make monthly payments lower than the interest accruing on their loans, meaning negative amortization ​​which may result in a larger outstanding loan balance over time.

Analysts have highlighted that policies providing across-the-board loan cancellation may result in higher-income households receiving more cancellation benefits compared to lower-income households when the total dollar amounts cancelled or the savings in annual debt service payments are looked at. Besides, large cancellation plans may also significantly impact federal budgets and debt.

(With inputs from Reuters, Associated Press)

Source link

#Explained #student #loan #crisis #Joe #Bidens #cancellation #plan

Plucky Kids Sue Montana Over Climate Policies, THIS WHOLE COURT’S OUT OF ORDER!

In Montana, the Big Sky (when there’s not a wildfire) State, a group of 16 young people ranging in age from five to 22 are getting their day — or two weeks, more like — in court, in a first of its kind lawsuit against the state, claiming that Montana policies favoring fossil fuels have failed to provide the state constitution’s guarantee of a healthy environment “for present and future generations.” The trial in the case of Held v. State of Montanagot underway Monday, with expert testimony on the reality of climate change, as well as testimony from two of the plaintiffs on how the climate crisis has directly affected them and their families.

A lot of climate-related lawsuits have sought damages and injunctive relief against fossil fuel companies that knew damn well their products contributed to global warming; in the US, many such suits have so far been thrown out or are still working their way through early procedural stages. Happy news: An April US Supreme Court decision allowing such suits in state courts may help move a number of cases forward. Held v. Montana, filed in 2020, wasn’t affected either way, since the defendant is the state itself.

The lawsuit argues that the state’s energy policy violates the state constitution by promoting fossil fuel development and use. It also seeks to strike down a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act that flatly forbids the state from considering climate change when approving energy projects. Despite last minute attempts to get the state Supreme Court to throw out the case, it’s going forward this week in Lewis and Clark District Court, under Judge Kathy Seeley.


In opening arguments Monday, the Guardian reports,

Roger Sullivan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, explained that climate change is fueling drought, wildfires, extreme heat and other environmental disasters throughout Montana, taking a major toll on the young plaintiffs’ health and wellbeing. There is a “scientific consensus”, he noted, that these changes can be traced back to the burning of fossil fuels.

He described how some plaintiffs have asthma that has been worsened by abundant wildfire smoke in recent years. Some love to hunt and fish but have seen stocks deteriorate. One plaintiff works as a ski instructor – a job threatened by warm winter temperatures and decreasing snowfall. And others are members of Indigenous tribes whose cultural practices are threatened by climate crisis-linked shifts in weather patterns, he said.

Montana is responsible for more planet-heating pollution than some countries, said Sullivan. Without urgent action, these climate consequences will only get worse.

Plaintiffs. Pic by the editrix’s dear best friend Susan Evans

The state, represented by assistant Attorney General Michael D. Russell, argued that since climate change is a global problem, nothing Montana does on its own can be proven to have made any difference one way or the other, aw shucks. He also claimed that the state no longer promotes fossil fuels since the state this year repealed its 30-year-old energy policy, so there’s nothing to sue over.

“This case as it currently exists is far more boring than the plaintiffs would make it out to be,” Russell told the court. “It’s simply a challenge to a discreet provision to a purely procedural statute.”

While it’s true that one bill passed this spring repealed the old climate policy, a bunch of others very specifically promote fossil fuels, like the measure prohibiting climate considerations in permitting, and other measures that will

loosen coal-mining regulations, prohibit local governments from adopting regulations to steer their communities toward cleaner energy sources, and make it harder and more expensive for environmental groups to delay or stop projects with litigation.

One bill even prohibits local building codes from “requiring solar panels, solar panel-ready wiring or electric vehicle charger-ready wiring in new construction,” and another forbids bans on methane gas hookups, because George Washington fought to secure a future for gas stoves. What we’re saying is, that guy’s a fucking liar.

Testimony began with Mae Nan Ellingson, who was a delegate to Montana’s constitutional convention in 1972, where she had advocated for the provision guaranteeing Montanans the right to a “clean and healthful environment.” This paragraph from the Montana Free Press sure makes us like her. When she moved to Missoula to attend the University of Montana in the ’60s, Ellingson testified, air pollution was

so bad that she couldn’t see Mount Sentinel, the iconic prominence that looms over the campus. She began phoning in reports to the local radio station and joined the group Gals Against Smog and Pollution (GASP), signaling her entrée to environmental activism.

No two ways about it: The Left has way more fun with acronyms.

The court also heard from Nikki Held, the lead plaintiff in the case, who grew up on a ranch in southeast Montana and in middle school helped gather data for a

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research project surveying cross sections of Montana’s Powder River, one of the longest undammed waterways in the West, which happens to pass through her family property. That research experience, along with learning about climate change in school, led Held to study environmental science at Colorado College, where she graduated with her bachelor’s degree just a few weeks ago.

Held testified that she had seen firsthand the effects of a changing climate on her family’s ranch, including “wildfires, drought, flooding, more extreme weather events such as windstorm and hail, changes in wildlife behavior,” and pointed out that her family ranch has seen drought and declining snowfall threaten its water supply. She started to discuss how the climate crisis has left her stressed out, but the state objected since that was “speculative,” and Judge Seeley sustained the objection since Held isn’t a climate expert or a psychologist.

The court also heard from expert witness Steven Running, a professor emeritus of ecosystem and conservation science at U of M, who explained the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by greenhouse gases, resulting in worldwide effects that include Montana, like, even if Republicans say it’s not allowed to.

“I think Montana and really everywhere else needs to, as rapidly as possible, quit burning fossil fuels,” said Running, who was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for which he won the Nobel Peace prize in 2007. “It’s quite straightforward.”

Weirdly, as Running answered questions about a report this year from the IPCC, Mark Stermitz, an attorney for the state, objected that the IPCC report was “hearsay” somehow, a complaint Seeley denied. When he cross-examined Running, Stermitz asked whether Montana can stop climate change all on its own, aha, gotcha! Running agreed that a single state can’t do that, but that Montana could indeed lead wider action:

“What has been shown in history over and over and over again is that when a significant social movement is needed, it’s often been started by one or two or three people,” Running said.

The Guardian did not note whether the state’s attorneys mocked Running by singing “Kumbaya” in falsetto, but you just know they wanted to.

The trial continues today and the rest of the week; you can even watch it online here when court is in session. Not like anything else of interest is going on.

Susan Evans

Also, don’t forget our Wonkette Book Club continues; We’re reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2020 climate epic The Ministry for the Future, which is about, among other things, building a legal case for keeping the planet habitable for young people, even the non-plucky ones.

[Guardian/ Montana Free Press / Guardian / Our Children’s Trust / Photo by Nikki Held, provided to Montana Free Press]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 monthly so we can keep you up to date on everything, including the young people trying to save humanity from itself.

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.

Source link

#Plucky #Kids #Sue #Montana #Climate #Policies #COURTS #ORDER

US Supreme Court ruling could turbocharge climate lawsuits

A US Supreme Court ruling this week is set to open the floodgates for climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies that have been blocked for years by jurisdictional disputes. The decision comes on the heels of a bumper year for global climate litigation in 2022 and ahead of major climate rulings expected from international courts in coming months. As environmental disruption intensifies globally, is legal action an effective way to counter the climate crisis?

Justices at the US Supreme Court on Monday turned down appeals from five major oil companies, enabling municipalities to file lawsuits to hold energy companies accountable for climate change. The lawsuits must now be heard in state courts, a venue often seen as more favourable to plaintiffs than federal court

The decision was greeted as good news by environmentalists, after years of administrative wrangling over the cases brought in Rhode Island, California, Colorado, Hawaii and Maryland seeking climate-related damages against Exxon Mobil Corp, Suncor Energy Inc, Chevron Corp and others.

“These lawsuits have been bogged down in jurisdictional disputes because of the fossil fuel industry’s delay tactics,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Washington DC-based Center for Climate Integrity. “Now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision, there is a clear path forward. This was a major step forward for communities that have been fighting for years to put oil companies on trial.”

“The decision allows the more than two dozen cases filed in the US against the oil and gas industry to proceed in state courts, closer to where climate impacts are occurring,” added Nikki Reisch, Climate and Energy Program Director at the Center for International Environment Law (CIEL). “It clears the way for aggrieved communities to finally have their day in court.”

A rising tide

In recent years climate litigation has emerged as a new and promising battle ground for environmental protections. Cases in the US (home to the most climate lawsuits of any single nation) will now form part of a “rising tide” of climate litigation around the world, according to Reisch.   

Since 2015, the number of climate lawsuits brought globally has more than doubled. Roughly one-quarter of all climate cases ever brought were filed between 2020 and 2022.

“There is no sign of this trend slowing or stopping. To the contrary, it’s accelerating and expanding,” said Reisch. 

Recent cases have included some “remarkable wins in a very short period of time,” she added.

They include a 2017 lawsuit that saw the first case of a company facing legal charges on climate grounds when judges in Germany accepted a case brought by farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya accusing German electricity provider, RWE, of causing a rise in greenhouse gases that could trigger devastating floods in his native Peru.

In 2021, judges for the first time ordered a company to emit less CO2 in a landmark ruling by Dutch courts against oil giant Shell.

>> Read more: Shell ordered to go further with carbon emissions cuts in landmark Dutch case

There is a sense that more boundary-pushing rulings are on the horizon. In the Shell case, for instance, judges ruled on the potential for future harm but not on the negative impact of past emissions.

2023: ‘A vanguard year’

The larger rulings help galvanise other, smaller cases and create a snowball effect. The more individual climate cases succeed in the courts, the more they set new legal precedents that allow other climate cases to succeed which the majority do. More than half (54%) of decided non-US cases had an outcome that is “favourable to climate action” a 2022 report from the Grantham Research Institute found.

The stage is set for climate lawsuits in 2023 to break new ground. “It will be a vanguard year for climate litigation, based on all the past successes in the past,” said Louise Fournier, legal counsel at Greenpeace International. “I think we’ll see more and more cases against corporations, not only in Europe or in the US, but also in the Global South.”

Previously, most climate lawsuits were brought before national legal systems, but a new avenue of litigation is opening international courts. In January 2023, Chile and Columbia successfully called for an advisory opinion on the scope of state obligations for responding to the climate emergency at the Inter American Court of Human Rights. In March, landmark cases were brought to the European Court of Human Rights.

Lawyers talk with members from a group of Swiss seniors who are taking their government to court to demand climate action, at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, on Wednesday, March 29, 2023. © Jean-Francois Badias, AP

The decisions made in these courts are likely to influence the highest international court. In March 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), agreed to issue its own landmark advisory opinion on climate change obligations of nation states. Environmentalists hope it will contain guidance on “questions of loss, damage and finance and the consequences if you breach those obligations”, according to Fournier.

Such guidance would not only allow plaintiffs around the world to cite ICJ advice in their cases but also “definitely influence climate negotiations and national climate policies”, said Fournier. 

Pushing the boundaries

Increasingly, cases are not just being brought against major polluters, but also against other actors in the environmental sphere: the state, food and agriculture, transport, plastics and finance sectors. There is also an avenue for an increase in cases against individuals that could “create a sense of personal responsibility on decision makers” said Catherine Higham, policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

One such case has been brought by a group of law students against the board directors of oil multinational BP. Another accuses former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

“Those cases are really pushing the boundaries of what we understand to be possible within existing legal systems,” said Higham. They may also have limited chance of courtroom success, she added, although they can be influential in other ways.

In many instances, climate lawsuit dynamics still have a David vs. Goliath feel. More than 70% of all climate cases are filed by NGOs and individuals often against multinational conglomerates with deep pockets. But the fact that such confrontations are possible – and increasingly successful – is meaningful.

“There is a sense of agency that individuals and groups of people have in bringing cases against major corporations,” said Fournier. “The fact that they can go to court and be on an equal balance-of-power is really monumental.”

Even by simply filing a case the plaintiffs make a statement. “Litigants can generate publicity around it, and they can force the defendants in the case and other stakeholders to engage with them,” explainned Higham. “That can have a real impact on the policy landscape, and how different stakeholders like companies and governments are understanding things like climate risk.”

Changing perceptions and encouraging systemic change is perhaps where climate litigation is most effective. But without long-term plans to tackle climate change caused by humans, legal victories can ring hollow.

“What lawsuits do is highlight gaps in regulatory action. And it is absolutely desirable, from all kinds of perspectives, that we see strong regulatory action coming from government, rather than relying on litigation in the courts,” said Higham. 

“It’s critical that climate cases be part of broader social movements,” added Reisch. “Litigation serves as an important deterrent and a lever to accelerate action, but no lawsuit will solve the climate crisis on its own.”

Source link

#Supreme #Court #ruling #turbocharge #climate #lawsuits

These women ran an underground abortion network in the 1960s. Here’s what they fear might happen today | CNN



CNN
— 

The voice on the phone in 1966 was gruff and abrupt: “Do you want the Chevy, the Cadillac or the Rolls Royce?”

A Chevy abortion would cost about $200, cash in hand, the voice explained. A Cadillac was around $500, and the Rolls Royce was $1,000.

“You can’t afford more than the Chevy? Fine,” the voice growled. “Go to this address at this time. Don’t be late and don’t forget the cash.” The voice disappeared.

Dorie Barron told CNN she recalls staring blankly at the phone in her hand, startled by the sudden empty tone. Then it hit her: She had just arranged an illegal abortion with the Chicago Mafia.

The motel Barron was sent to was in an unfamiliar part of Chicago, a scary “middle of nowhere,” she said. She was told to go to a specific room, sit on the bed and wait. Suddenly three men and a woman came in the door.

“I was petrified. They spoke all of three sentences to me the entire time: ‘Where’s the money?’ ‘Lie back and do as I tell you.’ And finally ‘Get in the bathroom,’” when the abortion was over, Barron said. “Then all of a sudden they were gone.”

Bleeding profusely, Barron managed to find a cab to take her home. When the bleeding didn’t stop, her bed-ridden mother made her go to the hospital.

At 24, Barron was taking care of her ailing mother and her 2-year-old daughter when she discovered she was pregnant. Her boyfriend, who had no job and lived with his parents, “freaked,” said Barron, who appears in a recent HBO documentary. The boyfriend suggested she get an abortion. She had never considered that option.

“But what was I to do? My mom was taking care of my daughter from her bed while I worked — they would read and play games until I got home,” Barron said.”How was either of us going to cope with a baby?

“Looking back, I realize I was taking my life in my hands,” said Barron, now an 81-year-old grandmother. “To this day it gives me chills. If I had died, what in God’s green earth would have happened to my mom and daughter?”

Women in the 1960s endured restrictions relatively unknown to women today. The so-called “fairer sex” could not serve on juries and often could not get an Ivy League education. Women earned about half as much as a man doing the same job and were seldom promoted.

Women could not get a credit card unless they were married — and then only if their husband co-signed. The same applied to birth control — only the married need apply. More experienced women shared a workaround with the uninitiated: “Go to Woolworth, buy a cheap wedding-type ring and wear it to your doctor’s appointment. And don’t forget to smile.”

Marital rape wasn’t legally considered rape. And, of course, women had no legal right to terminate a pregnancy until four states — Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Washington — legalized abortion in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.

Illinois had no such protection, said Heather Booth, a lifelong feminist activist and political strategist: “Three people discussing having an abortion in Chicago in 1965 was a conspiracy to commit felony murder.”

Despite that danger, a courageous band of young women — most in their 20’s, some in college, some married with children — banded together in Chicago to create an underground abortion network. The group was officially created in 1969 as the “Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation.”

But after running ads in an underground newspaper: “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Call Jane,” each member of the group answered the phone as “Jane.”

Despite their youth, members of Jane managed to run an illegal abortion service dedicated to each woman's needs.
From left: Martha Scott, Jeanne Galatzer-Levy, Abby Pariser, Sheila Smith and Madeline Schwenk.

“We were co-conspirators with the women who called us,” said 75-year-old Laura Kaplan, who published a book about the service in 1997 entitled “The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service.”

“We’ll protect you; we hope you’ll protect us,” Kaplan said. “We’ll take care of you; we hope you’ll take care of us.”

What started as referrals to legitimate abortion providers changed to personalized service when some members of Jane learned to safely do the abortions themselves. Between the late 1960s and 1973, the year that the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, Jane had arranged or performed over 11,000 abortions.

“Our culture is always searching for heroes,” said Kaplan. “But you don’t have to be a hero to do extraordinary things. Jane was just ordinary people working together — and look what we could accomplish, which is amazing, right?”

Even after several members were caught and arrested, the group continued to provide abortions for women too poor to travel to states where abortion had been legalized.

“I prayed a lot. I didn’t want to go to jail,” said 80-year-old Marie Learner, who allowed the Janes to perform abortions at her apartment.

“Some of us had little children. Some were the sole breadwinners in their home,” Learner said. “It was fearlessness in the face of overwhelming odds.”

Marie Learner opened her home to women undergoing abortions. Her neighbors knew, she said, but did not tell police.

The story of Jane has been immortalized in Kaplan’s book, numerous print articles, a 2022 movie, “Call Jane,” starring Elizabeth Banks and Sigourney Weaver, and a documentary on HBO (which, like CNN, is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery).

Today the historical tale of Jane has taken on a new significance. After the 2022 Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade and the mid-term takeover of the US House of Representatives by Republicans, emboldened conservative lawmakers and judges have acted on their anti-abortion beliefs.

Currently more than a dozen states have banned or imposed severe restrictions on abortion. Georgia has banned abortions after six weeks, even though women are typically unaware they are pregnant at that stage. In mid-April, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that would ban most abortions after six weeks. It won’t go into effect until the state Supreme Court overturns its previous precedent on abortion. Several other states are considering similar legislation. In other states, judicial battles are underway to protect abortion access.

“It’s a horrific situation right now. People will be harmed, some may even die,” said Booth, who helped birth the Jane movement while in college.

“Women without family support, without the information they need, may be isolated and either harm themselves looking to end an unwanted pregnancy or will be harmed because they went to an unscrupulous and illegal provider,” said Booth, now 77.

A key difference between the 60s and today is medication abortion, which 54% of people in the United States used to end a pregnancy in 2022. Available via prescription and through the mail, use of the drugs is two-fold: A person takes a first pill, mifepristone, to block the hormone needed for a pregnancy to continue.  A day or two later, the patient takes a second drug, misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract, creating the cramping and bleeding of labor.

In early April a Texas judge, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk – a Trump appointee who has been vocal about his anti-abortion stance — suspended the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone despite 23 years of data showing the drug is safe to use, safer even than penicillin or Viagra.

On Friday, the Supreme Court froze the ruling and a subsequent decision by the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals at the request of the Justice Department and the drug manufacturer. The action allows access to mifepristone in states where it’s legal until appeals play out over the months to come.

However, 15 states currently restrict access to medication abortion, even by mail.

The actions of anti-abortion activists, who have been accused of “judge shopping” to get the decisions they want, is “an unprecedented attack on democracy meant to undermine the will of the vast majority of Americans who want this pill — mifepristone — to remain legal and available,” Heather Booth told CNN.

“This is a further weaponization of the courts to brazenly advance the end goal of banning abortion entirely,” she added.

If women in her day could have had access to medications that could be used safely in their homes, they would not have been forced to risk their lives, said Dorie Barron, thinking back to her own terrifying abortion in a sketchy Chicago motel.

“I’m depressed as hell, watching stupid, indifferent men control and destroy women’s lives all over again,” she said. “I really fear getting an abortion could soon be like 1965.”

Chicago college student Heather Booth had just finished a summer working with civil rights activists in Mississippi when she was asked to help with a different kind of injustice.

Heather Booth, 18, with civil rights heroine Fannie Lou Hamer during

A girl in another dorm was considering suicide because she was pregnant. Booth, who excelled at both organization and chutzpah, found a local doctor and negotiated an abortion for the girl. Word spread quickly.

“There were about 100 women a week calling for help, much more than one person could handle,” Booth said. “I recruited about 12 other people and began training them how to do the counseling.”

Counseling was a key part of the new service. This was a time when people “barely spoke about sex, how women’s bodies functioned or even how people got pregnant,” Booth said. To help each woman understand what was going to happen to them, Booth quizzed the abortion provider about every aspect of the procedure.

“What do you do in advance? Will it be painful? How painful? Can you walk afterwards? Do you need someone to be with you to take you home?” The questions continued: “What amount of bleeding is expected, and can a woman handle it on their own? If there’s a problem is there an urgent number they can call?”

Armed with details few if any physicians provided, the counselors at Jane could fully inform each caller about the abortion experience. The group even published a flyer describing the procedure, long before the groundbreaking 1970 book “Our Bodies, Ourselves” began to educate women about their sexuality and health.

“I don’t particularly like doctors because I always feel dissatisfied with the experience,” said Marie Learner, who spoke to many of the women who underwent an abortion at her home.

“But after their abortion at Jane, women told me, ‘Wow, that was the best experience I’ve ever had with people helping me with a medical issue.’”

Eileen Smith, now 73, was one of those women. “Jane made you feel like you were part of this bigger picture, like we were all in this together,” she said. “They helped me do this illegal thing and then they’re calling to make sure I’m OK? Wow!

“For me, it helped battle the feeling that I was a bad person, that ‘What’s wrong with me? Why did I get pregnant? I should know better’ voice in my head,” said Smith. “It was priceless.”

Like many young women in the 60s, Heather Booth often protested for civil and women's rights.

Many of the women who joined Jane had never experienced an abortion. Some viewed the work as political, a part of the burgeoning feminist movement. Others considered the service as simply humanitarian health care. All saw the work as an opportunity to respect each woman’s choice.

“I was a stay-at-home mom with four kids,” said Martha Scott, who is now in her 80s. “We knew the woman needed to feel as though she was in control of what was happening to her. We were making it happen for her, but it was not about us. It was about her.”

Some volunteers, like Dorie Barron, experienced the Jane difference firsthand when she found herself pregnant a few years after her abortion at the hands of the Mafia.

“It was a 100% total reversal — I had never experienced such kindness,” Barron said. Not only did a Jane hold each woman’s hand and explain every step of the process, “they gave each of us a giant supply of maternity sanitary pads, and a nice big handful of antibiotics,” she said. “And for the next week, I got a phone call every other day to see how I was.”

Barron soon began volunteering for Jane by providing pregnancy testing for women in the back of a church in Chicago’s Hyde Park.

“It wasn’t just abortion,” Barron explained. “We also said, ‘You could consider adoption,’ and gave adoption referrals. And if the woman wanted to continue with her pregnancy, we said, ‘Fine, please by all that is holy make sure you get prenatal care, take your vitamins, and eat as best you can.’ It was women helping women with whatever they needed.”

Most of the women who contacted Jane were unable to support themselves, in unhealthy relationships, or already had children at home, so the service was a way of “helping them get back on track,” said Smith, who, like Barron, had begun working for Jane after her abortion.

“We were telling them ‘This isn’t the end of the world. You can continue to leave your boyfriend or your husband or continue to just take care of those kids you have.’ We were there to help them get through this,” said Smith, who later became a homecare nurse.

From left: Eileen Smith, Diane Stevens and Benita Greenfield were three of the dozens of women who volunteered for Jane.

Diane Stevens says she came to work for Jane after experiencing an abortion in 1968 at the age of 19. She was living in California at the time, which provided “therapeutic abortions” if approved in advance by physicians.

“I’d had a birth control failure, and I was coached by Planned Parenthood on how to do this,” said Stevens, now 74. “I had to see two psychiatrists and one doctor and tell them I was not able to go through with the pregnancy because it would a danger to both my physical and mental health.

“I was admitted to the psychiatric ward, although I didn’t really know that — I thought I was just in a hospital bed. But oh no, ‘I was mentally ill,’ so that’s where they put me,” said Stevens, who later went to nursing school with Smith. “Then they wheeled me off for the abortion. I had general anesthesia, was there for two days, and then I was discharged. Isn’t that crazy?”

Sakinah Ahad Shannon, now 75, was one of the few Black women who volunteered as a counselor at Jane. She joined after accompanying a friend who was charged a mere $50 for her abortion. At that time, Jane’s fee was between $1 and $100, based on what the woman could afford to pay, Shannon said.

“When I walked in, I said, ‘Oh my God, here we go again. It’s a room of White women, archangels who are going to save the world,’” said Shannon, a social worker and member of the Congress of Racial Equality, an interracial group of non-violent activists who pioneered “Freedom Rides” and helped organize the March on Washington in 1963.

What she heard and saw at her friend’s counseling session was so impressive it “changed my life,” Shannon said. She and her family later opened and operated three Chicago abortion clinics for over 25 years, all using the Jane philosophy of communication and respect.

“It was a profoundly amazing experience for me,” she said. “I call the Janes my sisters. The color line didn’t matter. We were all taking the same risk.”

Sakinah Ahad Shannon and her daughters went on to open and run three abortion clinics in Chicago.

It wasn’t long before the women discovered a “doctor” performing abortions for Jane had been lying about his credentials. There was no medical degree — in the HBO documentary, he admitted he had honed his skills by assisting an abortion provider.

The group imploded. A number of members quit in horror and dismay. For the women who stayed, it was an epiphany, said Martha Scott. Like her, several of the Janes had been assisting this fake doctor for years, learning the procedures step by step.

“You’d learn how to insert a speculum, then how to swap out the vagina with an antiseptic, then how to give numbing shots around the cervix and then how to dilate the cervix. You learned and mastered each step before you moved on to the next,” said Laura Kaplan, who chronicled the procedure in her book.

By now, several of the Janes were quite experienced and willing to do the work. Why not perform the abortions themselves?

“Clearly, this was an intense responsibility,” said Judith Acana, a 27-year-old high school teacher who joined Jane in 1970. She started her training by helping “long terms,” women who were four or five months along in the pregnancy.

“Remember, abortion was illegal (in Illinois) so it could take weeks for a woman to find help,” said Arcana, now 80. “Frequently women who wanted an abortion at 8 or 10 weeks wound up being 16 or 18 weeks or more by the time they found Jane.”

The miscarriage could happen quickly, but it rarely did, she said. It usually took anywhere from one to two days.

“Women who had no one to help them would come back when contractions started,” Arcana said. “One of my strongest memories is of a teenage girl who had an appointment to have her miscarriage on my living room floor.”

The group also paid two Janes to live in an apartment and be on call 24/7 to assist women who had no one to help them miscarry at home, said Arcana, a lifelong educator, author and poet. “But many women took care of it on their own, in very amazing and impressive and powerful ways,” she said.

Judith Arcana learned how to do abortions herself and wrote about the Jane experience in poems, stories, essays and books.

Any woman who had concerns or questions while miscarrying alone could always call Jane for advice any time of the day or night.

“People would call in a panic: ‘The bleeding won’t stop,’” Smith recalled. “I would tell them, ‘Get some ice, put it on your stomach, elevate your legs, relax.’ And they would say ‘Oh my gosh, thank you!’ because they were so scared.”

For women who were in their first trimester, Jane offered traditional D&C abortions — the same dilation and curettage used by hospitals then and today, said Scott, who performed many of the abortions for Jane. Later the group used vacuum aspiration, which was over in a mere five to 10 minutes.

“Vacuum aspiration was much easier to do, and I think it’s less difficult for the woman,” Scott said. “Abortion is exactly like any other medical procedure. It’s the decision that’s an issue — the doing is very straightforward. This was something a competent, trained person could do.”

It was May 3, 1972. Judith Arcana was the driver that day, responsible for relocating women waiting at what was called “the front” to a separate apartment or house where the abortions were done, known as “the place.”

On this day, a Wednesday, the “place” was a South Shore high-rise apartment. Arcana was escorting a woman who had completed her abortion when they were stopped by police at the elevator.

“They asked us, ‘Which apartment did you come out of?’ And the poor woman burst into tears and blurted out the apartment number,” Arcana said. “They took me downstairs, put cuffs on me and hooked me to a steel hook inside of the police van.”

Inside the apartment on the 11th floor, Martha Scott said she was setting up the bedroom for the next abortion when she heard a knock at the door, followed by screaming: “You can’t come in!”

“I shut the bedroom door and locked it,” Scott said, then hid the instruments and sat on the bed to wait. It wasn’t long until a cop kicked the door in and made her join the other women in the living room.

“We tell this joke about how the cops came in, saw all these women and said, ‘Where’s the abortionist?’ You know, assuming that it would be a man,” Scott said.

By day’s end, seven members of Jane were behind bars: Martha Scott, Diane Stevens, Judy Arcana, Jeanne Galatzer-Levy, Abby Pariser, Sheila Smith and Madeleine Schwenk. Suddenly what had been an underground effort for years was front page headlines.

“Had we not gotten arrested, I think no one would ever have known about Jane other than the women we served,” Scott said.

Top: Sheila Smith and Martha Scott.
Bottom: Diane Stevens and Judith Arcana.

An emergency meeting of Jane was called. The turnout was massive — even women who had not been active in months showed up, anxious to know the extent of the police probe, according to the women with whom CNN spoke.

Despite widespread fear and worry, the group immediately began making alternate plans for women scheduled for abortions at Jane in the next few days to weeks. The group even paid for transportation to other cities where abortion had already been legalized, they said.

News reports over the next few days gave further details of the bust: There was no widespread investigation by the police. It was a single incident, triggered by a call from a sister-in-law who was upset with her relative’s decision to have an abortion, they said.

“It wasn’t long after I was arrested that I came back and worked for quite a few months,” said Scott, one of the few fully trained to do abortions.

“I like to think I was a good soldier,” Scott said. “I like to think what did made a difference not only to a whole bunch of people, but also to ourselves. It gave us a sense of empowerment that comes when you do something that is hard to do and also right.”

As paranoia eased, women began to come back to work at Jane, determined to carry on.

“After the bust, we had a meeting and were told ‘Everybody needs to start assisting and learn how to do abortions.’ I was like, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa!’” said Eileen Smith, who had not been arrested. “But you felt like you really didn’t have much of a choice. We had to keep the service running.”

Laura Kaplan volunteered for the Janes, later immortalizing the group in her book,

The preliminary hearing for the arrested seven was in August. Several of the women in the apartment waiting for abortions the day of the arrest suddenly developed amnesia and refused to testify. According to Kaplan’s book, one of the women later said, “The cops tried to push me around, but f**k them. I wasn’t going to tell on you.”

It didn’t matter. Each Jane was charged with 11 counts of abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion, with a possible sentence of up to 110 years in prison.

As they waited for trial, the lawyer for the seven, Jo-Anne Wolfson, adopted delaying tactics, Kaplan said. A case representing a Texas woman, cited as “Jane Roe” to protect her privacy, was being considered by the US Supreme Court. If the Court ruled in Roe’s favor, the case against the Jane’s might be thrown out.

That’s exactly what happened. On March 9, 1973, three months after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion in the US, the case against the seven women was dropped and their arrest records were expunged.

Later that spring, a majority of Janes, burned out by the intensity of the work over the last few years, voted to close shop. An end of Jane party was held on May 20. According to Kaplan’s book, the invitation read:

“You are cordially invited to attend The First, Last and Only Curette Caper; the Grand Finale of the Abortion Counseling Service. RSVP: Call Jane.”

Today, most of the surviving members of Jane are in their 70s and 80s, shocked but somehow not surprised by the actions of abortion opponents.

“This is a country of ill-educated politicos who know nothing about women’s bodies, nor do they care,” said Dorie Barron. “It will take generations to even begin to undo the devastating harm to women’s rights.”

In the meantime, women should research all available options, keep that information confidential, seek support from groups working for abortion rights, and “share your education with as many women as you can,” Barron added.

As more and more reproductive freedoms have been rolled back over the past year, many of the Janes are angry and fearful for the future.

Abortion rights demonstrators walk across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York nearly two weeks after the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“This is about the most intimate decision of our lives — when, whether and with whom we have a child. Everyone should have the ability to make decisions about our own lives, bodies, and futures without political interference,” said Heather Booth, who has spent her life after leaving Jane fighting for civil and women’s rights.

“We need to organize, raise our voices and our votes, and overturn this attack on our freedom and our lives. I have seen that when we take action and organize we can change the world.”

Source link

#women #ran #underground #abortion #network #1960s #Heres #fear #happen #today #CNN

U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocks restrictions on abortion pill

The Supreme Court said on April 14 it was temporarily keeping in place federal rules for use of an abortion drug, while it takes time to more fully consider the issues raised in a court challenge.

In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the court put a five-day pause on the fast-moving case so the justices can decide whether lower court rulings restricting the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug, mifepristone, should be allowed to take effect in the short term.

The justices are being asked at this point only to determine what parts of an April 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, as modified by an appellate ruling on Wednesday, can be in force while the case continues. The order expires late Wednesday, suggesting the court will decide that issue by then.

The court finds itself immersed in a new fight involving abortion less than a year after conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen States to effectively ban abortion outright.

President Joe Biden’s administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, the maker of the pill, asked the justices to intervene.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement on Friday evening that the administration continues “to stand by FDA’s evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and we will continue to support the FDA’s independent, expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs”.

She added, “The stakes of this fight could not be higher in the face of ongoing attacks on women’s health, and we will continue to fight to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.”

A flag that reads “my body, my choice,” flutters in the wind across the street from Florida Capitol where the House voted to ban abortions after six weeks on Thursday, April 13, 2023 in Tallahassee.
| Photo Credit:
AP

A lawyer for the anti-abortion doctors and medical organisations suing over mifepristone said the court’s action on Friday was “standard operating procedure” and urged the justices to allow the appeals court-ordered changes to take effect by the middle of next week.

The type of order issued by the court on Friday, an administrative stay, ordinarily is not an indication of what the justices will do going forward. It was signed by Justice Alito because he handles emergency filings from Texas. Justice Alito also is the author of last year’s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Justice Department and Danco both warned of “regulatory chaos” and harm to women if the high court doesn’t block the lower-court rulings that had the effect of tightening FDA rules under which the drug, mifepristone, can be prescribed and dispensed.

The new limits would have taken effect on Saturday if the court hadn’t acted.

“This application concerns unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos by suspending the existing FDA-approved conditions of use for mifepristone,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote on Friday, less than two days after the appellate ruling.

The Biden administration and Danco now want a more lasting order that would keep the current rules in place as long as the legal fight over mifepristone continues. As a fallback, they asked the court to take up the issue, hear arguments and decide by early summer a legal challenge to mifepristone that anti-abortion doctors and medical organisations filed last year.


ALSO READ | A history of the discourse around abortion in the U.S. 

The court rarely acts so quickly to grant full review of cases before at least one appeals court has thoroughly examined the legal issues involved.

A ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late on Wednesday would prevent the pill, used in the most common abortion method, from being mailed or prescribed without an in-person visit to a doctor. It also would withdraw the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone for use beyond the seventh week of pregnancy. The FDA says it’s safe through 10 weeks.

Still, the appeals court did not entirely withdraw FDA approval of mifepristone while the fight over it continues. The 5th circuit narrowed an April 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, whose far-reaching and virtually unprecedented order would have blocked FDA approval of the pill. He gave the administration a week to appeal.

“To the government’s knowledge, this is the first time any court has abrogated FDA’s conditions on a drug’s approval based on a disagreement with the agency’s judgment about safety — much less done so after those conditions have been in effect for years,” Ms. Prelogar wrote.

Erin Hawley, a lawyer for the challengers, said in a statement that the FDA has put politics ahead of health concerns in its actions on medication abortion.

“The 5th Circuit rightly required the agency to prioritize women’s health by restoring critical safeguards, and we’ll urge the Supreme Court to keep that accountability in place,” said Ms. Hawley, a senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that also argued to overturn Roe v. Wade.

File photo of protestors, upset with the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, gather on the Idaho Capitol steps, Friday, June 24, 2022 after marching through Downtown Boise.

File photo of protestors, upset with the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, gather on the Idaho Capitol steps, Friday, June 24, 2022 after marching through Downtown Boise.
| Photo Credit:
AP

Mifepristone was approved by the FDA more than two decades ago and is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.

Adding to the uncertainty, a separate federal judge in Washington on Thursday clarified his own order from last week to make clear that the FDA is not to do anything that might block mifepristone’s availability in 17 Democrat-led States suing to keep it on the market.

It’s unclear how the FDA can comply with court orders in both cases, a situation that Ms. Prelogar described on Friday as untenable.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement Friday night, said the April 7 ruling out of Texas poses “an existential threat to the FDA’s authority to review and approve a wide range of drugs. If it stands, no medicine approved by the FDA would be safe from these attacks”.

Use of medication abortion jumped significantly after the FDA’s 2016 rule expansion, according to data gathered by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. In 2017, medication abortion accounted for 39% percent of abortions, but by 2020 it had increased to become the most common method, accounting for 53% of all abortions.

Experts have said the use of medication abortion has increased since the court overturned Roe.

When the drug was initially approved, the FDA limited its use to up to seven weeks of pregnancy. It also required three in-person office visits: the first to administer mifepristone, the next to administer the second drug, misoprostol, and the third to address any complications. It also required a doctor’s supervision and a reporting system for any serious consequences of the drug.

If the appeals court’s action stands, those would again be the terms under which mifepristone could be dispensed for now.

At the core of the Texas lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because the agency did not adequately review safety risks.

Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years. While less drastic than completely overturning the drug’s approval, the latest ruling still represents a stark challenge to the FDA’s authority overseeing how prescription drugs are used in the U.S. The ruling late Wednesday overturned multiple decisions made by FDA regulators after years of scientific review.

Common side effects with mifepristone include cramping, bleeding, nausea, headache and diarrhea. In rare cases, women can experience excess bleeding that requires surgery to stop.

Still, in loosening restrictions on mifepristone, FDA regulators cited “exceedingly low rates of serious adverse events.”

More than 5.6 million women in the U.S. had used the drug as of June 2022, according to the FDA. In that period, the agency received 4,200 reports of complications in women, or less than one tenth of 1% of women who took the drug.

Source link

#Supreme #Court #temporarily #blocks #restrictions #abortion #pill

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that bankruptcy filers can’t avoid debt incurred by another’s fraud

The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision Wednesday ruled that a California woman could not use U.S. bankruptcy code protection to avoid paying a $200,000 debt that resulted from fraud by her partner.

The court said that the woman, Kate Bartenwerfer, owed the debt even if she did not know about her husband David’s misrepresentations regarding the condition of a house when they sold it to San Francisco real estate developer Kieran Buckley for more than $2 million.

Buckley had sued the couple and won a judgment for those misrepresentations.

The 9-0 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett resolves a difference of opinion between several federal circuit appeals courts on the question of whether an innocent party can shield themselves from debt for another person’s fraud after filing for bankruptcy.

The ruling cited and reinforces a Supreme Court decision in 1885, which found that two partners in a New York wool company were liable for the debt due to the fraudulent claims of a third partner even though they were not themselves “guilty of wrong.”

Barrett dismissed Bartenwerfer’s grammar-focused argument, which claimed that the relevant section of the bankruptcy code, written in the passive voice as “money obtained by fraud,” refers to “money obtained by the individual debtor’s fraud.”

“Innocent people are sometimes held liable for fraud they did not personally commit, and, if they declare bankruptcy, [the bankruptcy code] bars discharge of that debt,” Barrett wrote. “So it is for Bartenwerfer, and we are sensitive to the hardship she faces.”

The debt to Buckley, which was originally a court judgment of $200,000 imposed in 2012, since has grown to more than $1.1 million as a result of interest, according to Janet Brayer, the San Francisco attorney who represented Buckley in a lawsuit over the house sale.

Brayer said that debt is growing at a current rate of 10% annually and that it excludes attorney fees to which she is entitled to under California law.

“We have been working on this since 2008, and now finally have been vindicated and justice served for all victims of fraud, Brayer said. “Hence, I am a happy girl today.”

Iain MacDonald, a lawyer for Bartenwerfer, did not have an immediate comment on the ruling, saying he planned to discuss the decision with her.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, noted that the ruling involves people who acted together in a partnership, not “a situation involving fraud by a person bearing no agency or partnership relationship to the debtor.”

“With that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion,” Sotomayor wrote.

The ruling on Bartenwerfer’s case came 18 years after the events that triggered the dispute.

Bartenwerfer, and her then-boyfriend David Bartenwerfer, jointly bought a house in San Francisco in 2005 and planned to remodel it and sell it for a profit, the ruling noted.

While David hired an architect, engineer, and general contractor, monitored their progress and paid for the work, “Kate, on the other hand, was largely uninvolved,” Barrett wrote.

The house was eventually bought by Buckley after the Bartenwerfers “attested that they had disclosed all material facts relating to the property,” Barrett noted.

But Buckley learned that the house had “a leaky roof, defective windows, a missing fire escape, and
permit problems.”

He then sued the couple, claiming he had overpaid for the home based on their misrepresentations of the property.

A jury ruled in his favor, awarding him $200,000 from the Bartenwerfers.

The couple was unable to pay the award or other creditors and filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, which normally allows people to void all of their debts.

But “not all debts are dischargeable,” Barrett wrote in her ruling.

“The Code makes several exceptions to the general rule, including the one at issue in this case: Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars the discharge of ‘any debt … for money … to the extent obtained by … false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud,'” Barrett wrote.

Buckley challenged the couple’s move to void their debt to him on that ground.

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge ruled in his favor, saying “that neither David nor Kate Bartenwerfer could discharge their debt to Buckley,” the opinion by Barrett noted.

“Based on testimony from the parties, real-estate agents, and contractors, the court found that David had knowingly concealed the house’s defects from Buckley,” Barrett wrote.

“And the court imputed David’s fraudulent intent to Kate because the two had formed a legal partnership to execute the renovation and resale project,” she added.

The couple appealed the ruling.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that David still owed the debt to Buckley given his fraudulent intent.

But the same panel disagreed that Kate owed the debt.

“As the panel saw it [a section of the bankruptcy code] barred her from discharging the debt only if she knew or had reason to know of David’s fraud,” Barrett wrote.

Bartenwerfer later asked the Supreme Court to hear her appeal of that ruling.

In her opinion, Barrett noted that the text of the bankruptcy code explicitly bars Chapter 7 from being used by a debtor to discharge a debt if that obligation was the result of “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.”

Barrett wrote, “By its terms, this text precludes Kate Bartenwerfer from discharging her liability for the state-court judgment.”

The justice noted that Kate Bartenwerfer disputed that, even as she admitted, “that, as a grammatical matter, the passive-voice statute does not specify a fraudulent actor.”

“But in her view, the statute is most naturally read to bar the discharge of debts for money obtained by the debtor’s fraud,” Barrett wrote.

“We disagree: Passive voice pulls the actor off the stage,” Barrett wrote.

The justice wrote that Congress, in writing the relevant section of the bankruptcy code, “framed it to ‘focu[s] on an event that occurs without respect to a specific actor, and therefore without respect to any actor’s intent or culpability.’ “

Source link

#Supreme #Court #rules #bankruptcy #filers #avoid #debt #incurred #anothers #fraud

Tens of thousands migrants wait at U.S. border for asylum limits to end

EL Paso, Texas

Migrants along the U.S. border with Mexico sought shelter from the cold early on 21 December as restrictions that prevented many from seeking asylum in the U.S. remained in place beyond their anticipated end.

The U.S. government asked the Supreme Court on 20 December not to lift the limits before Christmas, in a filing a day after Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary order to keep the pandemic-era restrictions in place. Before Roberts issued that order, they had been slated to expire on 21 December.

Just after midnight, when Title 42 was supposed to be lifted, all was quiet on the banks of Rio Grande in El Paso where the Texas National Guard was posted. Hundreds of migrants had gathered by the concertina wire put up by the Texas National Guard but left earlier in the evening after being told by US officials to go to a gate to be processed in small groups.

First Sergeant Suzanne Ringle said one woman went into labor in the crowd on the riverbank and was assisted by Border Patrol agents. She added many children were among the crowd.

In the Mexican city of Juarez, across the border from El Paso, hundreds of migrants remained in line hoping that the restrictions would be lifted and they would be let through.

In Tijuana, which has an estimated 5,000 migrants staying in more than 30 shelters and many more renting rooms and apartments, the border was quiet on 20 December night as word spread among would-be asylum seekers that nothing had changed. Layered, razor-topped walls rising 30 feet along the border with San Diego make the area daunting for illegal crossings.

Under the restrictions, officials have expelled asylum-seekers inside the United States 2.5 million times, and turned away most people who requested asylum at the border, on grounds of preventing the spread of COVID-19 under a public health rule called Title 42. Both U.S. and international law guarantee the right to claim asylum.

The federal government also asked the Supreme Court to reject a last-minute effort by a group of conservative-leaning states to maintain the measure. It acknowledged that ending the restrictions will likely lead to “disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings,” but said the solution is not to extend the rule indefinitely.

With the decision on what comes next going down to the wire, pressure is building in communities along both sides of the U.S-Mexico border.

In El Paso, Democratic Mayor Oscar Leeser warned that shelters across the border in Ciudad Juárez were packed to capacity, with an estimated 20,000 migrants prepared to cross into the U.S.

At one point late Tuesday, some migrants were allowed to enter in batches through a gate in the border wall between two bridges that connect downtown El Paso with Ciudad Juarez, which is not uncommon at this spot on the border. Word that the gate was opening sent hundreds of people scrambling along the concrete banks of the Rio Grande, leaving smoldering campfires behind.

The city rushed to expand its ability to accommodate more migrants by converting large buildings into shelters, as the Red Cross brings in 10,000 cots. Local officials also hope to relieve pressure on shelters by chartering buses to other large cities in Texas or nearby states, bringing migrants a step closer to relatives and sponsors in coordination with nonprofit groups.

“We will continue to be prepared for whatever is coming through,” Leeser said.

Texas National Guard members, deployed by the state to El Paso this week, used razor wire to cordon off a gap in the border fence along a bank of the Rio Grande that became a popular crossing point for migrants who waded through shallow waters to approach immigration officials in recent days. They used a loudspeaker to announce in Spanish that it’s illegal to cross there.

Texas said it was sending 400 National Guard personnel to the border city after local officials declared a state of emergency. Leeser said the declaration was aimed largely at protecting vulnerable migrants, while a statement from the Texas National Guard said the deployment included forces used to “repel and turn-back illegal immigrants.”

In San Diego, a sense of normalcy returned to the nation’s busiest border crossing despite uncertainty leading up to Roberts’ decision. The San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce said it learned from U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the more modern, western half of the airport-sized pedestrian crossing would reopen to U.S.-bound travelers Wednesday at 6 a.m. The lanes, which lead to an upscale outlet mall, have been closed to almost all migrants since early 2020 to accommodate Title 42 processing.

The reopening comes “just in time for last-minute shoppers, visiting family members and those working during the holidays,” the chamber wrote to members. It said it didn’t know when the area would reopen to travelers going to Mexico from the United States.

Also refer | Biden, Mexican president warn of ‘unprecedented’ migration flow

Immigration advocates have said that the Title 42 restrictions, imposed under provisions of a 1944 health law, go against American and international obligations to people fleeing to the U.S. to escape persecution, and that the pretext is outdated as coronavirus treatments improve. They sued to end the use of Title 42; a federal judge sided with them in November and set the Dec. 21 deadline.

Conservative-leaning states appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that an increased numbers of migrants would take a toll on public services such as law enforcement and health care and warned of an “unprecedented calamity” at the southern border. They said the federal government has no plan to deal with an increase in migrants.

The federal government opposed the appeal, and told the court on 20 December that it has marshaled more resources to the southern border in preparation for the end of Title 42. That includes more Border Patrol processing coordinators, more surveillance and increased security at ports of entry, according to President Joe Biden’s administration.

About 23,000 agents are currently deployed to the southern border, according to the White House.

“The solution to that immigration problem cannot be to extend indefinitely a public-health measure that all now acknowledge has outlived its public-health justification,” the Biden administration wrote in its brief to the Supreme Court.

Yet the government also asked the court to give it some time to prepare if it decides to allow the restrictions to be lifted. Should the Supreme Court act before Friday, the government wants the restrictions in place until the end of Dec. 27. If the court acts on Friday or later, the government wants the limits to remain until the second business day following such an order.

At a church-affiliated shelter in El Paso a few blocks from the border, the Rev. Michael Gallagher said local faith leaders have been trying to pool resources and open up empty space. On 20 December, a gym at Sacred Heart Church gave shelter to 200 migrants — mostly women and children. Outside the church early Wednesday, dozens of people slept on the street.

Title 42 allows the government to expel asylum-seekers of all nationalities, but it’s disproportionately affected people from countries whose citizens Mexico has agreed to take: Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and, more recently Venezuela, in addition to Mexico.

Source link

#Tens #thousands #migrants #wait #border #asylum #limits