#Judge Mark Pittman

[truth-has-a-liberal-bias]

A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday blocked a new Biden administration rule that would prohibit credit card companies from charging customers late fees higher than $8.

US District Judge Mark T. Pittman, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, granted a preliminary injunction to several business and banking organizations that allege the new rule violates several federal statutes.

These organizations, led by the right-leaning US Chamber of Commerce, sued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after the rule was finalized in March. The rule, which was set to go into effect Tuesday, would save consumers about $10 billion per year by cutting fees from an average of $32, the CFPB estimated. [...]

President Biden tries to make improvements and a Trump stooge blocks the way.

We need to vote out as many Republicans as possible.

[follow-up-news]

A federal judge in Texas has blocked a new government rule that would slash credit card late-payment charges, a centerpiece of the Biden administration's efforts to clamp down on "junk" fees.   Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Friday granted an injunction sought by the banking industry and other business interests to freeze the restrictions, which were scheduled to take effect on May 14. In his ruling, Pittman cited a 2022 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that found that funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the federal agency set to enforce the credit card rule, is unconstitutional.  The regulations, adopted by the CFPB in March, seek to cap late fees for credit card payments at $8, compared with current late fees of $30 or more. Although a bane for consumers, the fees generate about $9 billion a year for card issuers, according to the agency. After the CFPB on March 5 announced the ban on what it called "excessive" credit card late fees, the American Bankers Association (ABA) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a legal challenge.  The ABA, an industry trade group, applauded Pittman's decision. "This injunction will spare banks from having to immediately comply with a rule that clearly exceeds the CFPB's statutory authority and will lead to more late payments, lower credit scores, increased debt, reduced credit access and higher APRs for all consumers — including the vast majority of card holders who pay on time each month," ABA CEO Rob Nichols said in a statement.  Maria Monaghan, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center counsel, echoed the sentiment, called the ruling "a major win for responsible consumers who pay their credit card bills on time and businesses that want to provide affordable credit."  Consumer groups blasted the decision, saying it will hurt credit card users across the U.S. "In their latest in a stack of lawsuits designed to pad record corporate profits at the expense of everyone else, the U.S. Chamber got its way for now, ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said in a statement. "The U.S. Chamber and the big banks they represent have corrupted our judicial system by venue shopping in courtrooms of least resistance, going out of their way to avoid having their lawsuit heard by a fair and neutral federal judge." According to consumer advocates that support the CFPB's late-fee rule, credit card issuers hit customers with $14 billion in late-payment charges in 2019, accounting for well over half their fee revenue that year. Financial industry critics say such late fees target low- and moderate-income consumers, in particular people of color. Despite Pittman's stay on Friday, analysts said the legal fight over late fees is likely to continue, with the case possibly heading to the Supreme Court. 

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

Just before the close of business Tuesday, items appeared on two court dockets with which Law Dork readers are all too familiar that showed how far removed reality is from the ideal of “equal justice under law” engraved above the U.S. Supreme Court’s doors.

The items show — in shocking if predictable contrast — that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is continuing to aggressively and explicitly encourage and protect forum-shopping for the right while federal courts in Alabama are continuing to aggressively investigate judicial concerns about alleged forum-shopping in LGBTQ civil rights litigation. First on Tuesday, two Trump appointees issued a ruling ordering, yet again, that a conservative ideological challenge to a Biden administration rule must remain within their ultraconservative circuit. Moments later, LGBTQ civil rights lawyers filed a notice that they had complied with the invasive order from another Trump appointee that he be allowed to review a document that they maintain is protected by attorney-client privilege as part of a two-year judge-shopping investigation. This issue is not new — I wrote about this issue more generally on June 10 — but Tuesday’s news developments are particularly stark examples of the differences in result that are the consequences of these differences in treatment.

Heads, the Chamber wins

For conservative forces — here, the Chamber of Commerce fighting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s credit card late fee rule — Judges Don Willett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has twice issued writs of mandamus to stop U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a fellow Trump appointee, from transferring the challenge to the federal court in D.C. Pittman, after the first go-round, harshly criticized the “landmines” laid by the Fifth Circuit. In Tuesday’s order, Willett’s libertarianism was supported by Judge Kyle Duncan’s Christian nationalism to … protect business interests. [...]

Tails, LGBTQ civil rights lawyers lose

A little more than a 10-hour drive across the South away — across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and up Alabama — lawyers submitted a document to U.S. District Judge Liles Burke that they insist is protected by attorney-client privilege but that he has now twice ordered the LGBTQ civil rights lawyers to turn over more than two years into a judge-shopping investigation. Burke himself prompted the investigation by questioning in a court order whether parties’ dismissal of two cases challenging the state’s new ban on gender-affirming care for minors and lawyers’ discussion that another challenge would be brought constituted judge-shopping.

Chris Geidner writes in Law Dork how right-wing interests get deferential treatment in various courts, especially the 5th Circuit Court.

[beardedmrbean]

A government agency created five decades ago to boost the fortunes of minority-owned businesses discriminated against whites and must now serve all business owners, regardless of race, a federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday.

Siding with white business owners who sued the Minority Business Development Agency for discrimination, Judge Mark T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas said the agency’s mission to help disadvantaged businesses owned by Blacks, Hispanics and other racial and ethnic groups gain access to capital and contracts violates the rights of all Americans to receive equal protection under the constitution.

“If courts mean what they say when they ascribe supreme importance to constitutional rights, the federal government may not flagrantly violate such rights with impunity. The MBDA has done so for years. Time’s up,” Pittman, who was named to the federal bench by President Trump, wrote in a 93-page decision.

Pittman directed the Nixon-era agency to overhaul its programs in a potential blow to other government efforts that cater to historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups.

The ruling marks a major development in the broader legal skirmish over diversity, equity and inclusion that is likely to fuel a re-energized conservative movement intent on abolishing affirmative action in the public and private sectors. 

Last summer’s Supreme Court decision on race-conscious college admissions has increased scrutiny of government programs that operate based on a presumption of social or economic disadvantage.

Conservative activists have peppered organizations with lawsuits claiming that programs to help Black Americans and other marginalized groups discriminate against white people. 

In a statement proclaiming “DEI’s days are numbered,” Dan Lennington, an attorney with Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, the public interest law firm that sued MBDA, hailed the decision as a “historic victory for equality in America.”

“No longer can a federal agency cater only to certain races and not others,” Lennington said. “The MBDA is now open to all Americans.”

The MBDA, which is part of the Commerce Department, could not be immediately reached for comment.

Justice Department lawyers who represented the agency declined to comment. They argued in court filings that the agency’s services are available to any socially or economically disadvantaged business owner. They also pointed to decades of evidence showing that certain groups suffered – and continue to suffer – social and economic disadvantages that stunt “their ability to participate in America’s free enterprise system.”

Alphonso David, president and CEO of the Global Black Economic Forum, said the court’s decision acknowledged this disadvantage.

"Despite this recognition, the court somehow argues that a program created to remedy this discrimination must be dismantled. That makes no sense,” David said in a statement. 

What’s more, David said the ruling is limited to one federal agency.

“We can expect right-wing activists to conflate the issue and confuse people into thinking it applies to any public or private program that fights discrimination, but that is not the case," he said.

Established in 1969 by President Richard Nixon to address discrimination in the business world, the MBDA runs centers across the country to help minority owned businesses secure funding and government contracts. The Biden administration made the agency permanent in 2021. 

Three small business owners sued MBDA in March, alleging they were turned away because of their race. “The American dream should be afforded to all Americans regardless of skin color or cultural background. But what we have is a federal government picking winners and losers based on wokeism – enough is enough,” one of the plaintiffs, Matthew Piper, said at the time.

National Urban League president Marc Morial urged the federal government to appeal the decision.

"The work of the MBDA to concentrate on the growth of businesses that remain substantially locked out of the mainstream of the American economy is needed and necessary," Morial said.

[simply-ivanka]

A federal judge in Texas has ruled a government agency designed to help minority-owned businesses cannot refuse assistance to White applicants.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman on Tuesday ruled in favor of a group of White business-owners who sued the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), alleging the agency unconstitutionally gives preferential treatment to non-White entrepreneurs. 

"The Agency uses a codified list of preferred races/ethnicities to determine who gets benefits and who doesn’t," Pittman wrote in a 93-page order. "The Agency presumes anyone from the listed groups is ‘socially or economically disadvantaged’ and is thus entitled to services. Anyone outside those groups — white or otherwise — is presumptively not disadvantaged and thus not entitled to benefits."

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 14, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 15, 2024

Today the White House announced tariffs on certain products imported from China, including steel and aluminum products, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries and battery components, solar cells, ship-to-shore cranes, syringes and needles, and certain personal protective equipment (or PPE). According to the White House, these higher tariffs are designed “to protect American workers and businesses from China’s unfair trade practices.” Tariffs are essentially taxes on imported goods, and altogether the tariff hikes cover about $18 billion in imported goods.

In 2018, Trump abruptly ended the economic era based on the idea that free trade benefited the global economy by putting tariffs of 25% on a wide range of foreign made goods. This was a cap to a set of ideas that had been sputtering for a while as industries moved to countries with cheaper labor, feeding the popular discontent Trump tapped into. Trump claimed that other countries would pay his tariffs, but tariffs are actually paid by Americans, not foreign countries, and his have cost Americans more than $230 billion. Half of that has come in under the Biden administration. 

Trump’s tariffs also actually cost jobs, but they were very popular politically. A January 2024 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by David Autor, Anne Beck, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson established that the trade war of 2018–2019 hurt the U.S. heartland but actually helped Trump’s reelection campaign. “Residents of regions more exposed to import tariffs became less likely to identify as Democrats, more likely to vote to reelect Donald Trump in 2020, and more likely to elect Republicans to Congress,” they discovered.

Now Trump is saying, that if elected, he will impose a 10% tariff on everything imported into the United States, with a 60% tariff on anything from China and a 100% tariff on any cars made outside the U.S. 

In contrast, the administration’s new tariffs are aimed only at China, and only at industries already growing in the U.S., especially semiconductors. Tariffs will rise to 50% on semiconductors and solar cells, 100% on electric vehicles, and 25% on batteries, a hike that will help the Big Three automakers who agreed to union demands in newly opened battery factories, as well as their United Auto Workers workforce. “I’m determined that the future of electric vehicles be made in America by union workers. Period,” Biden said.

The administration says the tariffs are a response to China’s unfair trade practices, and such tariffs are popular in the manufacturing belt of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Democratic senators from that region have asked Biden to maintain or increase tariffs on Chinese imports after “[g]enerations of free trade agreements that prioritize multinational corporations have devasted our communities, harmed our economy, and crippled our job market.” 

In other economic news, a new rule capping credit card late fees at $8, about a quarter of what they are now, was supposed to go into effect today, but on Friday a federal judge in Texas blocked the rule. The new cap was set by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the brainchild of Massachusetts Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, and was part of the Biden administration’s crackdown on “junk fees.” 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association sued to stop the rule from taking effect, and U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, appointed by Trump, issued a preliminary injunction against it. His reasoning draws from an argument advanced by the far-right Fifth Circuit, which oversees Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, arguing that the CFPB itself is unconstitutional because of its funding structure. "Consequently, any regulations promulgated under that regime are likely unconstitutional as well," Pittman wrote. 

On Friday, major airlines, including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, and Alaska Airlines—but not Southwest Airlines—sued the U.S. Department of Transportation over its new rule that requires the airlines disclose their fees, such as for checking bags, upfront to consumers. The department says consumers are overpaying by $543 million a year in unexpected fees. 

The airlines say that the rule will confuse consumers and that its “attempt to regulate private business operations in a thriving marketplace is beyond its authority.”

The other big story of the day is the continuing attempt of the MAGA Republicans to overturn our democratic system. 

This morning, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), second in line for the presidency and sworn to uphold the Constitution, left his post in Washington, D.C., to appear with former president Trump at his trial for falsifying business records to deceive voters before the 2016 election. The House was due to consider the final passage of the crucially important Federal Aviation Authority Reauthorization Act, but Johnson chose instead to show up to do the work the judge’s gag order means Trump cannot do himself, attacking key witness Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer. Johnson described Cohen as “clearly on a mission for personal revenge” and, citing his “history of perjury,” said that “[n]o one should believe a word he says in there.” 

“I do have a lot of surrogates,” Trump boasted this morning, “and they are speaking very beautifully.” Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who was also at the trial this morning, later said on Newsmax that they had indeed gone to “overcome this gag order.” 

Johnson went on to call the trial “corrupt” and say “this ridiculous prosecution…is not about justice. It’s all about politics.” He left without taking questions. Meg Kinnard of the Associated Press called out the moment as “a remarkable moment in modern American politics: The House speaker turning his Republican Party against the federal and state legal systems that are foundational to the U.S. government and a cornerstone of democracy.”

Peter Eisler, Ned Parker, and Joseph Tanfani of Reuters explained today how those attacks on our judiciary are sparking widespread calls for violence against judges, with social media posters in echo chambers goading each other into ever more extreme statements. According to her lawyer, Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, wore a bullet-proof vest as she came and went from court, an uncanny echo of the precautions necessary in mob trials.   

In a different attack on our constitutional system, House Republicans are trying to replace the administration’s foreign policy with their own. Over the weekend, they introduced a bill to force President Biden to send offensive weapons to Israel for its invasion of Rafah, overruling the administration’s decision to withhold a shipment of 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs after Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his government would invade Rafah despite strong opposition from the Biden administration. 

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters: “We strongly, strongly oppose attempts to constrain the president’s ability to deploy a U.S. security assistance consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.”

The Constitution establishes that the executive branch manages foreign affairs, and until 2015 it was an established practice that politics stopped at the water’s edge, meaning that Congress quarreled with the administration at home but the two presented a united front in foreign affairs. That practice ended in March 2015, when 47 Republican senators, led by freshman Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, wrote a letter to Iran’s leaders warning that they would not honor any agreement Iran reached with the Obama administration over its development of nuclear weapons. 

The Obama administration did end up negotiating the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran and several world powers, under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear development and allow inspections in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. In 2018 the extremist Republicans got their way when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal, largely collapsing it, after which Iran resumed its expansion of the nuclear enrichment  program it had stopped under the agreement.  

Now extremists in the House are trying to run foreign policy on their own. The costs of that usurpation of power are clear in Niger, formerly a key U.S. ally in the counterterrorism effort in West Africa. The new prime minister of Niger, Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine, whose party took power after a coup d’état threw out Niger’s democratically elected president, defended his country’s turn away from the U.S. and toward Russia in an interview with Rachel Chason of the Washington Post. Recalling the House’s six month delay in passing the national security supplemental bill, he said: “We have seen what the United States will do to defend its allies,” he said, “because we have seen Ukraine and Israel.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[dnaamericaapp]

Black Businesses Face Uphill Battle After Reverse Racism Ruling From Trump-Appointed Judge

Earlier this month, a federal court delivered yet another blow to government efforts to close the racial equity gap and better serve Black and brown communities.

The latest set back came by a ruling from Judge Mark Pittman that ordered the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) to no longer consider race or ethnicity when deploying its services to U.S. small businesses.

“This is not one attack, but it’s a series of attacks on the measures that the federal government has put in place to remedy,” Patrice Willoughby, senior vice president of global policy and impact at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), told theGrio.

Using the same constitutional argument the U.S. Supreme Court used to overturn race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions last year, Pittman, appointed to the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas by former President Donald Trump, said MBDA’s qualification for “disadvantaged” business owners violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

In other words, the judge argued the agency violated the constitutional rights of white business owners.

“While the agency’s work may help alleviate opportunity gaps faced by MBEs (minority business owners), two wrongs do not make a right,” Pittman wrote in his ruling.

Elected officials and advocates are decrying the federal court ruling, blaming a movement led by conservatives and affirmed by Republican-appointed judges that is undoing decades-long efforts to right historic wrongs that have afflicted Black and brown communities. The MBDA ruling, proponents fear, could further exacerbate existing racial disparities in ownership and wealth. -(source: the grio)

DNA America

“It’s what we know, not what you want us to believe.”

#dna #dnaamerica #news #politics

[dankusner]

A Texas Judge’s Fight to Keep a High-Profile Case Out of His Court

A battle over a new rule to limit credit card late fees has spiraled into a larger skirmish about how much power litigants should have to maneuver their cases into friendly courtrooms.

The Eldon B. Mahon U.S. Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth.

When legal activists want to challenge the federal government’s reach, they frequently head to Texas.

By filing cases in the state’s smaller divisions, they can be guaranteed a Republican-appointed district judge and an appeals court widely regarded as the most conservative federal court in the country.

The state is often the launchpad from which aggressively unorthodox arguments reach the Supreme Court.

But in one recent case, a Trump-appointed judge in Fort Worth has sided with a party he rarely favors — the federal government — to challenge an effort to use Texas as the arena for a fight with nationwide ramifications.

The case centers on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which in March issued a new rule capping most credit card late fees at $8 a month.

Days later, trade groups representing big banks sued to block the regulation, which the bureau estimates would save households — and cost lenders — around $10 billion a year.

To sue in a specific court, parties need to establish venue by showing a geographic connection between the issue and the chosen court.

To tie their credit card fee lawsuit to Texas, the national trade groups arguing on behalf of banks — the American Bankers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Bankers Association — teamed up with three state and local business associations.

That’s where Judge Mark Pittman, one of only two active federal judges in the Northern District of Texas’ Fort Worth division, balked.

He believes the case belongs in Washington, where the consumer bureau and the three national associations are based.

The nation’s capital is “the epicenter for these types of rules and challenges thereto,” he wrote in a ruling, adding: “Venue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a plaintiffs’ whim.”

[darkmaga-returns]

COVID Propaganda Roundup: The latest updates on the “new normal” – chronicling the lies, distortions, and abuses by the ruling class.

Bill Gates and Albert Bourla (finally) face trial for COVID scam The only regrettable caveats here are that a.) this is a civil proceeding rather than criminal and that b.) even if it were the latter, the Netherlands, being a sacred liberal Democracy™, doesn’t enact the death penalty.

Via Children's Health Defense (emphasis added):

“A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines.

According to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, the seven “corona skeptics” sued Gates last year, along with former Dutch prime minister and newly appointed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and “several members” of the Dutch government’s COVID-19 “Outbreak Management Team.”

Other defendants include Albert Bourla, Ph.D., CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.

“Because Bill Gates’ foundation was involved in combating the corona pandemic, he has also been summoned,” De Telegraaf reported.

According to Dutch independent news outlet Zebra Inspiratie, the plaintiffs allege that Gates, through his representatives, deliberately misled them about the safety of the COVID-19 shots, despite knowing “that these injections were not safe and effective.”

Dutch independent journalist Erica Krikke told The Defender that the seven plaintiffs — whose names are redacted in the lawsuit’s publicly available documents — “are ordinary Dutch people, and they have been jabbed and after the jabs they got sick.””

Related: SHOCKER: Bill Gates Met With Trump, Pressured Him Not to Investigate Vaccine Safety

FDA petitions court to toss out lawsuit requiring vaxx document disclosure Via Reuters (emphasis added):

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked a federal judge in Texas to throw out a public records lawsuit related to COVID-19 vaccines, arguing that it has already spent more than $3.5 million to produce more than 1 million documents in the case.

The FDA in a filing on Thursday defended the adequacy of the records it provided in the lawsuit, which was filed by scientists who wanted to see licensing information that the agency relied on to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine.

The lawsuit, filed in late 2021, attracted widespread attention after the FDA said early on that it could take decades to process and disclose records* to Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, the group that brought the case.

The public records lawsuit said that “the medical and scientific community and the public have a substantial interest in reviewing the data and information underlying the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer Vaccine.”

It said the requested data would help resolve questions about the FDA’s review process.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in an order in early 2022 set an accelerated time frame for the FDA, calling the group's Freedom of Information Act request an issue “of paramount public importance.”

The FDA declined to comment.

Aaron Siri, a lawyer for Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, in a statement on Friday said the fight for records was not over.

“Despite years of litigation, and the Court’s order to produce all clinical trial documents, FDA continues to improperly withhold over a million pages of trial documents," Siri said.

The agency at one point was producing 55,000 pages of records every 30 days in response to court orders in the lawsuit. It said in Thursday's filing seeking to close the case that it set up “unprecedented and extraordinary operations” to comply with Pittman’s directives.”

*Isn’t it remarkable that, when it comes to rolling out an experimental and unprecedently lucrative drug and then figuring out the logistics to get it injected into the peasants’ arms by the hundreds of millions, the FDA, in fascistic collusion with the pharmaceutical industry, is capable of achieving the near-impossible feat — yet, when it’s instructed to simply release documents in the public interest, that’s somehow too much of a burden for a multi-billion-dollar agency.

[scottguy]

Article: Trump Judge Strikes Blow Against NLRB in Troubling Sign of What’s Next

Trump Judge Strikes Blow Against NLRB in Troubling Sign of What’s Next

Union people or those who want one eventually... Republican judges are ready to dismantle the NLRB. ( National Labor Relations Board) That under Biden has been responsible for supporting unions for the first time in decades.

We need the Supreme Court swung back to at least neutral by a Democrat president.

If Trump wins, you can kiss goodbye the possibility of unions existing and growing for the foreseeable future.

[floridacreditcounseling]

A federal judge temporarily halts U.S. plan to lower credit card late fees to $8 - NPR

The temporary injunction imposed by Judge Mark Pittman in the Northern District of Texas is a win for the big banks and major credit card ... https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.npr.org/2024/05/11/1250770323/credit-card-late-fees-ruling-delay&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjhlZmRiMTE5YjgyN2M3YTM6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AOvVaw1RqP4vcv-iv2SryWUtiEW7

[beardedmrbean]

Feb. 27 (UPI) -- The White House is expected to face tough questioning from the conservative-leaning Supreme Court with President Joe Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan gets questioned by justices this week.

The White House on Tuesday will argue in front of the Supreme Court that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona can implement the plan under the 9/11-era Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students, or HEROES, Act.

The high court will hold hearings on two cases: Biden vs. Nebraska and Department of Education vs. Brown.

The high court agreed to hear oral arguments in December after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans refused to end a ruling by U. S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Texas stating Biden's unilateral effort to cancel student debt was illegal.

RELATED More than half nation's school districts face teacher shortages, data show

Biden's plan is an offshoot of the Trump administration's plan to pause student loan payments after declaring the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency in 2020.

The debt relief plan would grant as much as $10,000 in loan forgiveness for people making less than $125,000 annually and up to $20,000 for Pell grant recipients. Attacks on the plans, led by Republicans, have argued that only Congress has the authority over such efforts.

Earlier this month, 43 Senate Republicans joined together to file an amicus brief in the case charging that Biden's executive order to forgive student debt was unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers by circumventing Congress.

RELATED Biden administration proposes student loan 'safety net'

The White House said last month that the plan saw 26 million apply for debt relief with 16 million approved before the federal courts pulled the plug on Biden's plan, allowing the Supreme Court to weigh in.

[woo-sustainability]

[Image description: Two screenshots. The first says "Welcome to Student Aid (dot) gov. Student Loan Debt Relief is blocked. Courts have issued orders blocking our student debt relief program. As a result, at this time, we are not accepting applications. We are seeking to overturn those orders. If you've already applied, we'll hold your application." The following is in blue text, presumably a link: "Subscribe and check back here for updates." The text becomes normal again. "We will post information as soon as further updates are available."

The second screenshot is office information for Judge Mark T. Pittman, who is, as the caption reads, the judge responsible for blocking student loan forgiveness. The information is as follows: Chambers: (817) 850-6656 Courtroom Deputy: Haley Milam (817) 850-6683 Court Reporter: Monica Guzman (817) 850-6681 Courtroom Technology

501 West 10th Street, Room 401 Forth Worth, TX, 76102-3673

Courtroom: 4th floor Case letter designation: (P)

/end ID]

the judge who is blocking student loan forgiveness just in case you want to let him know how you feel about this…

[enterprisewired]

Federal Judge Transfers Lawsuit Challenging Credit Card Late Fees Rule

https://enterprisewired.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Friday-Source-The-Washington-Post.jpg

Share Post:

LinkedIn

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

Source- The Washington Post

A federal judge in Texas, known for hosting conservative challenges to Biden administration policies, has transferred a lawsuit contesting a rule restricting credit card late fees to a court in Washington, D.C. Here’s a breakdown of the latest developments:

Venue Transfer Decision

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, appointed by former President Donald Trump, made the decision to move the lawsuit after considering various factors. While half of the suing business groups are based in Washington, D.C., the majority of their legal representatives and the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which crafted the disputed rule, are also located there. The CFPB had requested the transfer, noting that no card issuer subject to the rule is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.

Dispute Over Venue

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with five other groups, argued against the transfer, contending that affected cardholders reside in Fort Worth. However, Judge Pittman rejected this argument, emphasizing the importance of filing lawsuits where the underlying events occurred rather than based on plaintiffs’ preferences.

Biden Announces New Rule Capping Credit Card Late Fees at $8 in Move Against Junk Fees

Rule Under Scrutiny

The lawsuit challenges a rule aimed at curbing what the CFPB deems “excessive” fees charged by credit card issuers for late payments. The rule, set to take effect in May, limits late fees to $8 for issuers with over 1 million open accounts, unless higher fees are justified to cover costs. Previously, issuers could charge up to $30 or $41 for subsequent late payments.

Context and Future Proceedings

Judge Pittman’s decision comes amid concerns over “judge shopping” and the increasing volume of conservative litigation in the Fort Worth courthouse against Biden administration policies. While the lawsuit proceeds, the groups have sought to expedite the case, citing the need to notify consumers about potential changes ahead of the rule’s implementation. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to review Pittman’s decision not to expedite the case.

The lawsuit underscores ongoing tensions surrounding financial regulations and litigation strategies in the current political landscape. As legal battles continue to unfold, stakeholders await further developments regarding the fate of the contested credit card late fees rule.

Curious to learn more? Explore our articles on Enterprise Wired

[msclaritea]

Black businesses face uphill battle after reverse racism ruling from Trump-appointed judge

Story by Gerren Keith Gaynor

“We should really look at these as the pushback against Black economic progress,” says Patrice Willoughby, senior vice president of global policy and impact at NAACP.

The latest set back came by a ruling from Judge Mark Pittman that ordered the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) to no longer consider race or ethnicity when deploying its services to U.S. small businesses. 

“This is not one attack, but it’s a series of attacks on the measures that the federal government has put in place to remedy,” Patrice Willoughby, senior vice president of global policy and impact the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, told theGrio.

In other words, the judge argued the agency violated the constitutional rights of white business owners.

“While the agency’s work may help alleviate opportunity gaps faced by MBEs (minority business owners), two wrongs do not make a right,” Pittman wrote in his ruling.

Elected officials and advocates are decrying the federal court ruling, blaming a movement led by conservatives and affirmed by Republican-appointed judges that is undoing decades-long efforts to right historic wrongs that have afflicted Black and brown communities. The MBDA ruling, proponents fear, could further exacerbate existing racial disparities in ownership and wealth.

“We should really look at these as the pushback against Black economic progress,” said Willoughby, a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus. “It’s very clear that, because discrimination continues to exist, these programs are still needed.” 

The mission of the Minority Business Development Agency is to promote the growth and competitiveness of U.S. minority-owned businesses. MBDA provides minority business owners access to capital, contracts and consulting services. Ironically, the agency was established by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969. Under President Joe Biden, a Democrat, it became a permanent agency under federal law that expanded its reach across the country.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told theGrio that Biden is “very proud” of signing into law a permanent government status for MBDA. 

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre talks to reporters during the daily news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on March 27, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)© Provided by TheGrio

“We’ve seen 16 million applications that were started under this administration over the past three years, which is important,” the Biden spokesperson shared. “There was certainly a boost … with minority businesses starting their small businesses.”

Now that MBDA will be required by law to open its programs to white business owners, experts fear it would lead to already existing patterns of implicit or explicit racial bias and further exacerbate the racial wealth gap.

“What you will have is essentially people do business with people they like,” Willoughby explained. “They want to drive visibility for who is able to benefit underground so that there’s no oversight, no regulation, and there’s no assistance more broadly, with respect to DEI.”

Samantha Tweedy, CEO of the Black Economic Alliance, said the judge’s ruling would “result in an MBDA unable to support diverse business owners navigating an economic system that research shows is riddled with racial bias.” 

“We know that is the goal of many who seek to claw back the pathways to economic progress open to the Black community,” said Tweedy, who called on Congress and the White House to “step in to protect the vital role of the MBDA.”

To date, “reverse racism” rulings that undo race-specific programs aimed at remedying racial disparities have hit college campuses, businesses, and even Black farmers. Conservative activists have largely filed these cases, including millionaire Edward Blum, who was behind the affirmative action case before the Supreme Court. Blum is also behind a pending lawsuit against the Black female-owned Fearless Fund, arguing that its program designed to boost funding for Black women entrepreneurs is discriminatory against white-owned businesses. 

“You remove the legal framework that allows them to challenge discrimination,” Willoughby explained about the growing number of legal challenges against DEI. She said success in courts “emboldens the opponents of equity” and turns back the clock on racial progress.

“Essentially, [they] are trying to return America to what these opponents referred to as the good old days, but really were a white supremacist framework,” noted Willoughby, “which Black businesses and people of color really had very little access to the benefits of this country that other people have enjoyed.”

According to a February 2024 report by the Brookings Institution, while Black businesses saw consecutive growth between 2017 and 2021, the number of Black-owned employer firms remains disproportionate to the number of Blacks living in the United States. In 2021, Black Americans represented only 2.7% of employers despite making up 14.4% of the population. Closing that gap, the report argues, would boost the U.S. economy and create thousands more jobs.

Looking ahead at combating the legal setbacks on DEI-related programs, Willoughby told theGrio that policymakers, researchers and litigants will have to double down on data collection and advocacy. Proponents of DEI programs will have to make “better arguments in the courts” and “firmer justification for the existence of any remedy where race is a linked with disadvantage.”

“It’s going to become a lot more important to collect the data, to document the discrimination, and to prove that the disadvantage is directly linked to race,” she said.

The current legal setbacks also reflect the fact that elections have consequences. In addition to Pittman being appointed to his judgeship by Trump, so were the three Supreme Court justices who joined the majority to strike down race-based affirmative action.

“Now that court, which is hostile to issues involving race and racial remedies, will be in operation for the next decade,” Willoughby said. 

“Voting is connected to Black progress,” she added. “Even if you are feeling disconnected, you still have to look at who has your interests at heart and vote with your pocketbook to identify the candidates that are going to shore up your participation in the economic system.”