July 29 Federal Update: Upcoming Congressional August Recess

Members of the House of Representatives and Senate are preparing to return to their districts ahead of the August Recess. The House will adjourn Aug. 2-Sep. 8, and the Senate from Aug. 5-Sept. 6.

The August Recess offers exciting opportunities to engage with your members of Congress. Community events, site visits, and meetings allow your representatives to gain a stronger understanding of the challenges your community is facing. They also can help you foster relationships so that you can work collaboratively to develop creative, innovative solutions to address shared concerns.

Here are a few strategies we recommend for connecting with your congressperson:

Schedule a Meeting Virtually or in their District Office
Congress relies on community-based organizations and direct support professionals to help create healthier, more resilient communities by improving mental health care and child welfare support. Your expertise on the strengths and challenges faced by children, adults, and families is crucial for shaping legislation and policies that truly reflect your community’s needs.

Please contact our Government Relations team, Dr. Blair Abelle-Kiser and Abigail Levine, if you would like assistance connecting to your representatives.

Invite Your Members of Congress to a Community Event or a Site Visit
Community events and site visits offer representatives an opportunity to see your organization in action, demonstrating your essential role in your community. Site visits can provide representatives with a firsthand glimpse of the challenges your organization is facing and how they are experienced within your community. Similarly, these events center the voices of the individuals in your communities, as representatives will meet with individuals and hear their concerns directly.

Visit a Town Hall
Town halls offer individuals an opportunity to share their story and the issues of greatest concern, while also learning from community members. Conversations with representatives may illuminate additional pathways for support and resources. Although they are not held by all members of Congress, representatives often announce town halls through their website and email list.

Sector Updates from the Judiciary

These Supreme Court and circuit court decisions are especially important to consider after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a Supreme Court decision that holds the power to significantly shift power from agencies, like the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administration of Children and Families, toward the judiciary.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
This ruling overturned a 40-year precedent, set by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, which required courts to defer to federal agencies’ expertise in interpreting ambiguous laws. Now, courts can independently interpret these laws without relying on agency expertise.

This shift means that courts can now challenge and override decisions made by agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), regarding important issues like Medicaid eligibility and consumer protections in private employer-sponsored health plans. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has expressed concern that this ruling could weaken civil rights protections, especially for survivors of domestic violence under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Previously, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set clear standards to protect survivors, their families, and supportive landlords. The new ruling may complicate access to these protections.

The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision grants judges the final authority to interpret federal laws, effectively allowing them to support or reject legislation approved by Congress. This is expected to increase legal challenges to federal rulemaking, potentially delaying the implementation of important federal programs. Social Current is dedicated to keeping the human service sector informed about key lawsuits and their impacts, helping to navigate the uncertainties brought about by such judicial changes.

Challenges to the SAVE Plan
The challenge follows multiple previous lawsuits surrounding the legality of the Biden administration’s efforts to address the burden many student loan borrowers are experiencing.

State of Missouri et al. v. Biden et al.
The SAVE Plan, which offers income-driven repayment plans for student loan borrowers, was temporarily paused by the Eighth Circuit Court after a coalition of states challenged the program as unconstitutional. The state plaintiffs included Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

The Biden administration created the SAVE Plan to ease the burden on student loan borrowers. However, the program has sparked significant controversy, as multiple states stress the cost to the government and claim it oversteps the authority of the Higher Education Act.

The appeals court has ordered the Education Department to temporarily stop administering the SAVE Plan until the court determines its verdict. Borrowers who are currently enrolled will be placed in forbearance without interest until the court reaches its decision. Nevertheless, the Biden administration vowed to, “continue to aggressively defend the SAVE Plan — which has been helping over 8 million borrowers access lower monthly payments, including 4.5 million borrowers who have had a zero dollar payment each month.”

State of Alaska, et al. v. United States Department of Education, et al.
Alaska, Texas, and South Carolina filed a similar lawsuit June 24, 2024, and the judge ruled in favor of the states. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, the district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, affirmed the likely loss of income the states will face. He also determined the SAVE Plan lacked congressional authorization and deemed the monthly payment cap and period limitation an overreach. Judge Crabtree prohibited the Department of Education from implementing changes in the payment cap or repayment periods, effective July 1, 2024.

The Department of Education vowed to appeal the decision and affirmed its commitment to assisting borrowers and ameliorating the burden of student loan debt.

Mackinac Center. for Public Policy v. US Department of Education
The ruling was also issued the same day in which a Michigan federal judge ruled against a nonprofit that challenged the Biden administration’s suspension of student loan payments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge determined the nonprofit, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, was unable to demonstrate how it was harmed by the U.S. Department of Education’s pause in payments. The ruling was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court.

Challenges to Proposed Title IX Expansions
The Biden administration recently issued a rule to expand existing federal Title IX protections against sex discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The rule would also prevent schools and educational programs receiving federal funding from barring transgender students from using bathrooms, changing facilities, and pronouns that correspond with their gender identities.

Although the rule was set to take effect Aug. 1, 22 states have filed and joined lawsuits, claiming the provisions are unconstitutional. They also detail the harm that would likely follow complying with the rules, especially through immense administrative costs.

While several cases remain undecided, many of the judges have claimed the states are likely to succeed. The courts maintain the Department of Education has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how they would be harmed if the rule did not go into effect. Inversely, states are likely to incur enormous administrative costs and experience immense uncertainty surrounding the receipt of federal funds.

Eleven states have temporarily been allowed to pause any efforts to implement, enact, or enforce the rules. The states affected include Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

Lawsuits Social Current Is Monitoring

Tennessee v. Becerra
Title X grants fund reproductive health care for low-income patients and include a longstanding federal requirement to offer counseling and referrals for abortion when requested by a patient. However, Tennessee failed to comply with the regulation after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In response, the Department of Health and Human Services declined to renew the state’s Title X funding, leading Tennessee to sue to regain its grant.

The suit will likely offer key context to the authority of agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws and the deference courts offer. Judge Kethledge of the Sixth Circuit maintained that the court was no longer bound by the seminal Supreme Court ruling, Rust v. Sullivan, following Loper Bright.

Arizona Families Tax Rebate Mayes v. IRS
The attorney general of Arizona filed a suit against the IRS following its decision to subject Arizona’s family tax rebate to federal income taxes. A 2023 bill directed the state’s surplus to fund a rebate to families of $250 for every child younger than 17 and $100 for older dependents, up to a maximum of $750 per family.

Typically, the IRS requires certain criteria to be met to qualify for a general welfare exclusion. State payments must:

• Be paid from a governmental fund
• Be for the promotion of general welfare (that is, based on the need of the individual or family receiving such payments)
• Not represent compensation for services absent a specific Federal income tax exclusion

The U.S. District Court affirmed courts are not allowed to prevent the government from collecting taxes. Rather, courts can only decide the legality of a tax once it has been collected and paid. Additional suits filed once the tax has been collected will likely offer key precedent, especially in light of the immense financial impact on state residents. The IRS’ decision to tax the rebates would cost Arizonans an estimated 20.8 million.

Subscribe to the Policy and Advocacy Radar to receive our biweekly policy roundup, which includes commentary on issues in Social Current’s federal policy agenda, opportunities to take action, and curated news and opportunities.