Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Misappropriation
|
Saturday, July 01, 2023
Misappropriation
Joseph Fishkin Yesterday’s blockbuster student loan decision in Biden v. Nebraska expanded the new “major questions doctrine” (MQD) to benefits programs—a place this new doctrine was certainly destined to go eventually, but it had to get there yesterday in a hurry in order to strike down the Biden Administration’s student loan relief plan. Congress instructed the Department of Education in broad language to “waive or modify” any part of the student loan program including parts concerning debt forgiveness to ensure that individuals affected by a national emergency would not be left worse off by it. Both the Trump and Biden administrations used this statutory authority to pause federal student loan payments and interest accrual for all borrowers across the country over the past three years (at a cost in foregone revenue of over $200 billion). But the six-justice supermajority of Republican appointees on the court simply could not allow the same statutory authority to be used to actually write down the principal—to forgive $400 billion or so of student debt, about a quarter of all the debt outstanding. And so today they struck it down. A pause is one thing. An actual write-down just felt too much like redistribution. And redistribution is anathema to the core constitutional politics of the Republican party as presently constituted. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion hints at this, quoting a news article for the proposition that student loan cancellation “raises questions that are personal and emotionally charged, hitting fundamental issues about the structure of the economy.” In other words, student loan relief is a fundamentally redistributive intervention in American political economy of a kind that conservatives deeply oppose; that opposition makes the program controversial enough to be a “major” question for purposes of the MQD; and that in turn provides a justification for killing the program. The court, even as it kneecaps Congress, styles itself as defending Congress. It’s all very neat and tidy. It’s a doctrine designed like a heat-seeking missile to blow up Congressional power to do things that are controversial because they contradict the present Republican Party’s vision of constitutional political economy. There are hints in Biden v. Nebraska about where that vision might lead next. If you are trying to rein in the administrative state in general, and its potentially redistributive aspects in particular, then one of your major agenda items will be to bring as much of the fiscal state as possible under the umbrella of annual congressional appropriations. Appropriations are subject to across-the-board budget cuts, government shutdowns, sequestration, and all the other insanity that comprises the modern bipartisan bicameral budget circus in moments when Republicans control any houses of Congress. Money that isn’t subject to appropriations is, from this perspective, a problem. And so, in the coming years, watch for the emergence of a robust new theory of what counts as an “appropriation.” It’s already happening. To see it, you have to look both inside and outside the courts at the same time. I have learned from Jack Balkin to watch for arguments moving from “off the wall” to on the wall, and here I see it happening in real time. In the runup to this case, a number of conservative commentators outside the courts began to characterize student loan forgiveness as an appropriation. This is not literally true. A straight write-down of student loan balances is definitely not an appropriation in the constitutional sense (Article I, Section 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”). A write-down doesn’t draw money from the Treasury. It’s more like a tax cut, in that it deprives the government of future revenue it would otherwise have received. An economist would say these things are economically equivalent. But constitutionally, they’re quite different, and Republicans know it. Just a year ago, Senator Rick Scott proposed a whole bill whose sole purpose was shifting student loan relief over into the annual appropriations process. His “Debt Cancellation Affordability Act” would require “an express appropriation from Congress to pay for any federal student loan debts the Department proposes to waive, discharge, or otherwise reduce whenever granted to two or more borrowers in an amount greater than $1,000,000, rather than on a case-by-case basis.” Soon after Scott’s bill went nowhere, a George Will syndicated column previewing this litigation implied that Scott’s bill was effectively unnecessary: Biden’s student loan relief plan was already an illegal appropriation: it was, essentially, a form of spending, so doing it without a Congressional appropriation down to the specific dollar amount already violated the Constitution’s appropriations clause (quoted above). When Biden v. Nebraska reached the court, a number of amicus briefs on the plaintiff side made the same claim. Take a look at this brief from the “Citizens United Foundation,” this brief for the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, this brief from the “Empire Center,” or this brief from Betsy DeVos and other former Republican Secretaries of Education (a non-exhaustive list). At oral argument, Justice Thomas picked up the baton (see oral argument transcript, 37–42). He asked Solicitor General Prelogar whether the write-down “runs headlong into Congress’s appropriations authority.” You’d need an appropriation to make a $400 billion “grant,” he argued; aren’t you “in effect” doing the same thing through loan forgiveness? And of course in an economic sense, the answer is yes, although that proves too much—any form of relief under the HEROES Act including the covid pause also costs the government money, as Prelogar quickly pointed out. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts does not endorse this novel “anything affecting the government balance sheet is an appropriation” theory. But he winks at it. Like the broccoli in the Affordable Care Act litigation, this theory, which I’ll just call misappropriation for short, gets two subtle winks. In a section arguing for why the MQD should extend to government benefits, sort of apropos of nothing Chief Justice Roberts works this in:
Separately, and a little saucily, he responds to Justice Kagan’s dissent at one point this way: The dissent insists that “[s]tudent loans are in the Secretary’s wheelhouse.” Post, at 26 (opinion of KAGAN, J.). But in light of the sweeping and unprecedented impact of the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program, it would seem more accurate to describe the program as being in the “wheelhouse” of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. I am not enough of an expert in congressional procedure to be sure of which committee(s) would have jurisdiction over a student loan write-down bill, but there is no obvious reason in the rules for it to go to the Committees on Appropriations rather than, say, the education committees, since again, in the literal sense this is not an appropriation. I put little weight on my reading of those rules.* But my point is that Roberts, in choosing this particular committee as the place to assign his imaginary bill that is the loan forgiveness program for purposes of this rejoinder to Kagan, seems to be potentially making another little nod to the misappropriation argument. It’s at the very least misappropriation-curious, kind of feeling out the possibility of arguing—carefully without explicitly arguing—that maybe student loan relief is really somehow an appropriation. After the decision came down, I heard Rep. Virginia Foxx on the radio picking up on the appropriations language, as well as the underlying political economy point: “What the president has done is take on the role of Congress by deciding through a rule to appropriate money from the taxpayers to people who willingly took on a debt. And I think what he has done is totally illegal.” Why does this matter? Well, in an immediate sense it matters because the Biden Administration is coming back with a new student loan relief proposal under a different statute, and surely the underlying logic of “this is like an appropriation—hey actually it counts as an appropriation under Article I” will likely be part of the Republican party line against it. But the implications of a new jurisprudence of the Appropriations Clause are potentially much more far-reaching. Consider the challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the Court has already granted for next term. The Fifth Circuit has held that Congress has violated the Appropriations Clause by setting up the CFPB to get its funding, not from annual appropriations bills, but from a separate fund (basically the money comes from the Fed). Despite the irony of holding that Congress itself has violated the Appropriations Clause, this is apparently a serious enough argument to have won over a Fifth Circuit panel and it’ll be at the Court next term. In the long run, it will be very convenient for opponents of redistribution and of the modern administrative state to find a way to hold that anything with large fiscal consequences, especially redistributive consequences—basically, anything that financially helps ordinary people rather than the wealthy political donor class—is somehow an appropriation. Then it can be reined in by the Appropriations Clause and each house of Congress can get as many chances as possible to kill or modify the program. (Obviously, tax breaks for the wealthy will not be considered an appropriation.) This misappropriation of the term “appropriation” makes no sense as textualism, but then neither did killing the student loan forgiveness program. It makes no sense as originalism, but then neither did killing affirmative action. Constitutional politics ain’t beanbag. Watch out for this one. It’s coming. You read it here first. *Thanks to Josh Chafetz for pointing me to the relevant rules and also for pointing out the CFPB connection.
Posted 3:48 AM by Joseph Fishkin [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |