FEATURE ARTICLE
schools to find other ways to promote diversity. Such a ruling could also affect government programs, scholarships and financial aid and hiring practices at private companies.
Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown
These two cases, one brought by six Republican-led states and the other by two students, challenge President Joe Biden's student debt-relief plan. Biden's plan would wipe away up to $10,000 in federal student loan debt for borrowers if they make less than $125,000 a year individually or $250,000 as a family. Recipients of a Pell Grant government subsidy would get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.
The Biden administration says the plan would provide relief for up to 43 million borrowers and cancel the full balance of roughly 20 million of that number.
Several borrowers have told Newsweek how crushing the weight of their ballooning student debt has been, and how Biden's plan would change their lives if enacted. But opponents have said the plan is a violation of Biden's executive authority and pointed to its $430 billion price tag.
Groff v. DeJoy
This case was brought by Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier who refused to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs and then sued the U.S. Postal Service for religious discrimination. At the center of it is the court's interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires
employers to accommodate employees' religious practices unless doing so would be an "undue hardship" for the business. A 1977 ruling said employers can deny religious accommodations to employees when they impose more than a minimal, or "de minimis" cost on the business.
Groff wants the 1977 ruling overturned and for the court to say that employers must show "significant difficulty or expense" if they want to reject a religious accommodation. The court has proved sympathetic to religious plaintiffs in recent years, and the verdict could clarify the standard employers need to meet to deny religious accommodations, possibly strengthening protection for all religious workers.
303 Creative v. Elenis
The case of a Colorado web designer who says her religious beliefs prevent her from offering wedding website designs to gay couples is the latest clash involving religion and LGBTQ+ rights before the court.
Lorie Smith argued that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, among other factors, violates her free speech and religious rights. The Supreme Court took up the case only as a free-speech issue.
"Everyone should be free to choose the content of their speech," she told Newsweek last year. "I have not been able to create and design for weddings because the state of Colorado has been clear that I must create content against who I am."
Moore v. Harper
A ruling in Moore v. Harper could have far-reaching consequences, including