The Supreme Court has discretion in deciding procedural versus merit-based questions in major cases. In Trump v. CASA, the court chose procedural aspects over addressing the constitutionality of Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. By manipulating the case's focus, the court avoided ruling on the constitutional merits. In contrast, the student loan relief case centered on standing, where the court determined that no identifiable injury arose from President Biden's student loan forgiveness initiative, allowing for a ruling on its merits instead.
Mark Joseph Stern argues that the Supreme Court manipulated the case in Trump v. CASA to focus on procedural aspects, avoiding the merits, such as the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.
In the student loan case, the Supreme Court ruled on standing, stating no one was clearly injured by the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness, leading to a decision on the merits.
Collection
[
|
...
]