Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Photo Date: 2009
By Mary Sanchez
Tribune Content Agency
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor once had to look up the meaning of “summa cum laude” when she was told that she’d earned the distinction at Princeton University. Understand, she was from a neighborhood where such lofty achievements weren’t discussed, much less held up as a goal for little girls like her.
She was a Puerto Rican child of the Bronx. She had an emotionally neglectful mother who was a nurse, a father who would die young and could end any family gathering with an angry outburst after he consumed enough whiskey, a beloved and protective grandmother she adored, and an influential aunt who toiled away in a sewing factory hidden behind windows painted black to shield the conditions inside from prying eyes.
Sotomayor detailed all of this in her 2013 memoir, My Beloved World. And all of it influenced the Supreme Court justice she is today.
In recent oral arguments, Sotomayor pressed back on behalf of the 43 million people who would benefit from the Biden administration’s plan to erase $10,000 in student debt, or up to $20,000 for Pell Grant holders, which the court will rule on this summer. She went beyond the nuances of the legal wrangling and straight to the human side, describing the life-changing financial reprieve that could put so many Americans on a much better financial footing.
Discussing who will be affected if the student loans are forgiven, she said: “Many of them don’t have assets sufficient to bail them out after the pandemic. They don’t have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments. The evidence is clear that many of them will have to default.”
Because Sotomayor knows from her childhood that it’s not just the bill you can’t pay today, but what happens cumulatively. When society has a class of debtors, this becomes a huge lesion on the economic bounties of capitalism.
“Their financial situation will be even worse because once you default, the hardship on you is exponentially greater. You can’t get credit. You’re going to pay higher prices for things. They are going to continue to suffer from this pandemic in a way that the general population doesn’t.”
Most academics believe the Biden plan won’t survive this challenge at the highest court. The conservative-leaning court isn’t likely to buy the administration’s argument that debt relief initially designed for the military after September 11, 2001 should be applied to those struggling against the economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are several cases pending before the court. A first step will be deciding whether some even have legal standing. One was brought by six states (including my own – Missouri – and a neighboring one – Kansas) which needed to prove first that they would be harmed if the debt cancellation goes through. Missouri is home to a profitable student loan servicer.
Also, most crucially, is the question of whether the Biden administration had overrun the intention of Congress when legislators passed the law upon which the forgiveness would be based: The HEROES Act or the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003. At one point in the arguments over the second lawsuit, Sotomayor threw down a gauntlet of sorts. “Illogical” was the term she used when addressing an attorney arguing on behalf of a woman whose $17,000 in student loan debt wouldn’t be forgiven under Biden’s plan.
Commercial entities, not the federal government, service that debt. That lawsuit argues that procedures in setting up the forgiveness plan didn’t include a notice and comment period, which isn’t required under the HEROES Act and wouldn’t necessarily mean that the woman’s circumstances would be covered under Biden’s relief plan.
“This is so totally illogical to me,” Sotomayor said. “That you come into court to say, ‘I want more, I’m going to file a suit to get more, but I know I’m going to get nothing.’”
If you’ve read Sotomayor’s book, this down-to-earth approach in her argumentation wouldn’t shock. Another Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, has also been mentioned often in recent days, following the oral arguments in the case.
Thomas, in 2007, also wrote a compelling and heart-wrenching autobiography: My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir. In it, he offers personal experience with the overwhelming burden of student debt, which he carried even after being named a justice. That’s astounding, and alone ought to make the case for realigning the costs of an education with accessibility.
And yet, it wasn’t Thomas who spoke with empathy for those struggling with student loan debt, although he clearly understands poverty. He wrote of his early years as a young child, and being plagued by “nagging, chronic hunger,” sleeping in a chair because there was no bed for him and the unforgettable stench of raw sewage that seeped from a broken sewer line to an outdoor toilet.
Sotomayor wrote of how she developed a high emotional intelligence, which was, in part, a defense mechanism.
“I was a watchful child constantly scanning the adults for cues and listening in on their conversations. My sense of security depended on what information I could glean, any clue dropped inadvertently when they didn’t realize that a child was paying attention.” And in another section, she writes of how she first gained some valuable skills – listening and thinking as a young girl as people were misunderstood and conversations imploded.
“I was 15 years old when I understood how it is that things break down: People can’t imagine someone else’s point of view.”
Well, on one of the world’s largest stages, Sotomayor just exhibited how that sense of understanding and compassion could help resolve one of the biggest problems that could plague our society for many years down the road: the deep financial indebtedness of so many.
Readers can reach Mary Sanchez at msanchezcolumn@gmail.com and follow her on Twitter @msanchezcolumn. ©2023 Mary Sanchez. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.