ВИБОРЧА ГАЗЕТА

Biden Says Bypassing Filibuster ‘Real Possibility’ to Raise Debt Limit

U.S. President Joe Biden indicated Tuesday senators from his Democratic Party could bypass a supermajority voting rule in order to increase the nation’s debt limit without Republican votes. 

“It’s a real possibility,” Biden told reporters outside the White House. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said the government will likely reach its borrowing limit by October 18 unless Congress acts. 

Coming too close to the borrowing limit has its perils. A debt ceiling dispute in 2011 that Congress resolved two days before the borrowing limit was reached caused stock prices to fall and the first-ever credit downgrade for U.S. debt. 

Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance the legislation instead of a simple majority vote. The chamber is evenly divided between the Democratic and Republican caucuses, and Republicans already blocked two efforts to raise the debt limit last week. 

Making an exception to the supermajority rule, also known as the filibuster, would allow Senate Democrats to bypass Republican opposition, if all 50 are in unison.

Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, wants Democrats to raise the debt ceiling without Republican votes and using a more convoluted process known as reconciliation, that Democratic leaders have said will be time consuming and raise uncertainty as the deadline nears. 

“They have the time to do it. And the sooner they get about it, the better,” McConnell said at a news conference Tuesday. 

Democrat Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, accused Republicans of manufacturing a crisis as he announced a Wednesday vote on a bill to raise the debt limit already passed by the House of Representatives. 

“If Republicans want to vote ‘no’ tomorrow, if they really want to be the party of default, that’s their choice,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. 

The national government’s debt now stands at $28.4 trillion.  

The United States has for decades imposed limits on its borrowing, but Congress has always raised the debt ceiling or lifted it entirely for a period of time to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debts, averting a worldwide financial crisis spawned by the biggest global economy. 

Even a close call would likely be damaging. A 2011 debt ceiling dispute, which Congress resolved two days before the borrowing limit was due to have been reached, caused stocks to tumble and prompted a first-ever credit downgrade for U.S. debt. 

Some information for this report came from the Associated Press and Reuters. 
…

Biden Advocates Spending Plans Amid Uncertainty

President Joe Biden traveled to Michigan on Tuesday to promote his legislative priorities on infrastructure and social spending. The two bills face a stalemate in Congress as members of Biden’s own Democratic Party wrangle over the size and scope of the package.

Investing in infrastructure and expanding social welfare programs are two key issues Biden campaigned on.

With his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, he visited a worker training facility Tuesday in Howell, Michigan, to promote his plans. 

“It isn’t enough just to invest in our physical infrastructure,” Biden said. “If we’re going to lead the world like we used to, if we’re going to do that, we have to also invest in our people like you do right here in this training facility.”

Biden pushed key legislative agendas — the $1.2 trillion infrastructure package that has bipartisan support, and the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan. 

The latter is championed by progressives to fund what they call “human infrastructure,” including education and climate change mitigation. 

“They don’t increase the debt because they’re paid for by asking the very wealthy to begin to pay their fair share,” Biden said. “As a matter of fact, a significant portion of this plan cuts taxes for working people. And best of all, the cost of these bills in terms of adding to the deficit is zero.”

The plans are stuck as lawmakers in Biden’s own party disagree on their size and scope.

Democratic centrist Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona say the $3.5 trillion package is too expensive and they want it trimmed.

Meanwhile, progressives in the House of Representatives threaten to withdraw support for the $1.2 trillion infrastructure proposal unless the larger bill passes. Since the Senate is split 50-50, Democrats cannot afford to lose a single vote.

“If those two things fail, the administration is going to have not a whole lot to show for its first year,” according to Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center. 

“And it also really calls into question the kind of core premise of the Biden presidency, which is focused, pragmatic, calm, legislative expert who can get things done. If all of a sudden the Democratic Party spins out of control under his leadership, it really calls that kind of fundamental idea into question.” 

Biden visited lawmakers in Congress last week but failed to get them to agree, despite popular support for some of the bills’ components.

Not only would the legislation address the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, but the bills would also provide for universal prekindergarten, lower-cost child care and paid family leave. 

“The pandemic revealed a lot of the frailties in the U.S. economy, and the legislation is now addressing some of those,” said Grumet. “There’s also been a significant focus on climate change in both of these pieces of legislation, which obviously matters a lot to the global community.” 

Biden’s Michigan visit reflects the importance of securing moderates’ support by the October 31 vote deadline. 

Another legislative deadline for Biden is October 18, by which date Congress must vote to increase the debt ceiling to avoid potential global economic turbulence caused by the U.S. defaulting on its debts. 
…

Colleagues’ Stock Trading Scandals Slow Fed Chief Powell’s March to Renomination

With time ticking down on his term as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell’s reappointment to the post looks less certain than it did just a few weeks ago, as left-leaning Democrats hammer away at a series of scandals involving senior Fed personnel. 

On Monday, Powell’s chief antagonist in Congress, Senator Elizabeth Warren, released a letter to the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission asking the agency to investigate “ethically questionable” securities transactions by the presidents of two of the Federal Reserve’s district banks, and the Fed Board’s vice chairman. 

The letter came less than a week after Warren castigated Powell during a Senate Banking Committee hearing over what she sees as his lax regulatory approach toward large financial institutions.

“Your record gives me grave concerns,” Warren said, addressing Powell directly at the hearing. “Over and over, you have acted to make our banking system less safe, and that makes you a dangerous man to head up the Fed. And it’s why I will oppose your renomination.” 

Renomination still likely 

Powell’s four-year term as leader of the U.S. central bank will expire in February, and it has been broadly assumed that President Joe Biden would renominate him to another term. Experts say they still expect Powell to be renominated but feel less certain of that outcome than they did a few weeks ago. 

“I think he’s much more likely than not (to be renominated),” David Wessel, director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution, told VOA. “But it did move the needle a little bit, and not in his direction.”

“I still think it’s reasonable to assume that Powell is renominated, because he has enjoyed, for the most part, bipartisan support,” Mark Hamrick, senior analyst and Washington bureau chief for Bankrate.com, told VOA. 

“The Federal Reserve was relatively quick in responding to the dire financial conditions that were created by the pandemic lockdowns, and it fairly effectively and fairly quickly restored order to markets,” he said.

However, the questionable investing by Fed officials on his watch may be eroding what had been substantial support for Powell, even among generally progressive Democrats. 

In a note to clients last week, Karen Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, wrote, “One of Mr. Powell’s strengths in the renomination battle has been divisions among Democratic progressives, making this resonant scandal particularly costly to his otherwise-strong position within the Biden Administration.” 

Questionable trading 

Last month, the Fed announced an investigation of the central bank’s ethics policies after reports surfaced that the presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and Dallas had been actively trading in the stock market and in real estate at the same time that they were helping to set the nation’s monetary policies. Both said their investment activities complied with all applicable laws and Fed guidelines, and both announced their retirement on September 27. 

On Friday, Bloomberg reported that Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Richard Clarida bought between $1 million and $5 million in stock the day before Powell made a major speech on efforts to help the U.S. economy recover from the pandemic.

When Bloomberg reported Clarida’s trading activity, the Fed issued a statement sayingthe transactions were part of a “a pre-planned rebalancing to his accounts” that were pre-cleared by the Fed’s ethics officials, and that the timing was coincidental. 

Powell addressed the trading activity of the two bank presidents during congressional hearings last week, noting that while the trading activity was technically within the rules established by the Fed, the appearance of the activity was “just obviously unacceptable.” 

“[T]he problem is that the rules, the practices and the disclosure needs to be improved,” Powell said during congressional testimony, adding, “We will rise to this moment.” 

Investigation demanded 

In her letter to the SEC, Warren called out Powell by name. 

“It is not clear why Chair Powell did not stop these activities, which corrode the trust and effectiveness of the Fed. The Fed officials’ trades clearly run afoul of Fed guidelines stating that officials should ‘avoid any dealings or other conduct that might convey even an appearance of conflict between their personal interests, the interests of the System, and the public interest,'” she said. 

While Warren may not ultimately succeed in derailing a renomination of Powell, a Republican who was appointed to his first term by former President Donald Trump, her efforts may still have a major impact on the Fed. The Biden administration has a number of important central bank appointments to make, in addition to the chair.

‘Personnel is policy’ 

“She’s clearly using this as a way to make it difficult for the administration to reappoint Powell,” Wesel said, adding, “It’s pretty clear that the Biden White House cares a lot about what Elizabeth Warren thinks. And it’s pretty clear that Elizabeth Warren has figured out that personnel is policy.” 

The Federal Reserve Board is made up of seven governors who are appointed by the president and serve overlapping terms of 14 years each. From among the sitting board members, the president also appoints the Fed’s chair, vice chair, and vice chair for supervision to four-year terms. 

There is currently one empty board seat, and another will open up when Clarida’s term expires in January. The four-year-term of the current vice chair for supervision will end October 13. 

Warren and others on the left have made it clear that they would prefer to see sitting Fed Governor Lael Brainard replace Powell as Fed chair. But if Biden were to make her the vice chair for supervision and promise to add more left-leaning members to the board, that might help assuage their concerns about a Powell reappointment, according to analysts.

“There’s going to be some horse trading around this,” said Jesse Van Tol, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. “I can still see a scenario where the administration decides it’s in their interest to trade to get a few other Fed governors confirmed and leave Powell in place, if they believe they can trust him and work with him.” 

 
…

Biden Assails Republicans for Impasse over Increasing US Debt Limit

U.S. President Joe Biden assailed opposition Republican lawmakers Monday for obstructing Democrats from increasing the country’s borrowing authority to avert a potentially catastrophic default on October 18, when the U.S. government expects to run out of cash to pay its bills. 

Biden said he could not guarantee the United States would not default for the first time, contending it is up to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to allow Senate Democrats on their own to increase the debt limit past its current $28.4 trillion level without the threat of a Republican filibuster to block quick action. 

The U.S. leader said if the government defaults on its debts, Republicans would be responsible. Economists predict a default could have dire consequences for U.S. stock indexes and the world economy, and possibly force the government to delay pension payments to older Americans or make timely payments to government contractors. 

Biden said: “I can’t believe (a default) will be the end result, because the consequences would be so dire. … But can I guarantee it? If I could, I would. But I can’t.”

He depicted a default as akin to a “meteor headed to crash into our economy,” warning of higher interest rates and declining stock valuations affecting the investments of millions of Americans. 

McConnell sent a letter Monday to the White House reiterating that Republicans would not help Democrats to resolve the debt ceiling impasse. 

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats, with 50 seats in the 100-member Senate and the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris, are willing to lift the debt ceiling on their own without Republican support on a simple majority vote. 

But McConnell has refused to yield the right of Republicans to filibuster the issue, which would force the Democrats to reach a 60-vote threshold with the support of at least 10 Republicans. He says Democrats should approve the debt ceiling increase through a legislative tactic called reconciliation that cannot be filibustered, a procedure Democrats say would be time-consuming and cumbersome. 

“Since mid-July, Republicans have clearly stated that Democrats will need to raise the debt limit on their own,” McConnell wrote in the letter. “We have simply warned that since your party wishes to govern alone, it must handle the debt limit alone as well.” 

Biden urged McConnell to simply allow Democrats to vote on the debt ceiling hike by not filibustering it, an option that would not require any Republican votes, but would allow Democrats to proceed without obstruction. 

“They need to stop playing Russian roulette with the U.S. economy,” Biden said. “Not only are Republicans refusing to do their job but threatening to use their power to prevent us from doing our job — saving the economy from a catastrophic event — I think, quite frankly, is hypocritical, dangerous, and disgraceful. Their obstruction and irresponsibility knows absolutely no bounds.” 

The country’s long-term debt is tantamount to personal credit card debt for consumers, requiring payments for debts already incurred. But in the latest standoff, McConnell and some Republican lawmakers are contending that lifting the debt ceiling would allow congressional Democrats to greatly expand government spending for the biggest expansion of social safety net programs since the 1960s that Republicans uniformly oppose.

The U.S., virtually alone among world governments, imposes a debt ceiling, which Congress has had to increase on numerous occasions in recent decades because the U.S. chronically spends more on government programs than it collects in revenue from corporations and individual taxpayers. 

Sometimes, the debt ceiling has been increased to a specific amount, but other times it has been suspended for a year or two. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said last week that Congress ought to simply do away with the debt ceiling altogether, although that appears unlikely since lawmakers in both U.S. political parties relish blaming the other for what they perceive as excessive spending when the other party’s favored spending plans are adopted. 

Schumer said in a letter to colleagues Monday that lawmakers must act quickly to increase the debt ceiling to avoid financial ramifications. 

“Let me be clear about the task ahead of us: we must get a bill to the president’s desk dealing with the debt limit by the end of the week. Period,” Schumer wrote. 

 
…

US Democrats Remain Split on Key Legislation

Key U.S. Democratic lawmakers remained at odds Sunday on how to approve both infrastructure improvements in the country and the biggest social safety net expansion in five decades, but the leading progressive signaled there was room for compromise. 

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has for months pushed for a $3.5 trillion plan calling for climate control measures, universal pre-kindergarten classes, expanded health care for older Americans and more. Sanders is an Independent who caucuses with Democrats. 

He told ABC’s “This Week” show, “I accept that there’s going to have to be give and take.” 

He declined to put a price tag on how much spending he would settle for, the same stance taken by another leading advocate for the social safety net legislation, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of the western state of Washington, in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” show.

“There’s no number on the table yet that… everyone has agreed to,” Jayapal said, but said that $1.5 trillion proposed by centrist Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is “too small to get our priorities in.” 

President Joe Biden, in a rare visit to the Capitol on Friday to meet with Democratic members of the House of Representatives, suggested the eventual cost could be trimmed to between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion for the social safety net measure, in addition to the trillion-dollar infrastructure legislation to repair the country’s deteriorating roads and bridges and expand broadband internet service throughout the United States. 

The U.S. leader has continued to advocate for passage of both pieces of legislation in tandem with each other. 

Sanders said, “Poll after poll shows that what we are doing is exactly what the American people want. It is not what the big money interests want, it is not what the lobbyists want. It’s what the American people want, and we’ve got to do it.” 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic-controlled House, twice last week postponed a vote on the roads and bridges infrastructure measure. The move followed a threat from several dozen progressive lawmakers to vote against it until they had won assurances that Senate Democrats would also approve the social safety net spending. Pelosi has now set an October 31 deadline for completing passage of the two measures. 

In the politically divided Senate, with 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, two moderate Democrats, Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have balked at the $3.5 trillion price tag for the social safety net expansion that would be the biggest in the U.S. since the 1960s. 

On Saturday, Sinema assailed the Democratic congressional leadership for delaying the infrastructure vote last week, calling the decision “inexcusable” and “deeply disappointing.” 

“Democratic leaders have made conflicting promises that could not all be kept — and have, at times, pretended that differences of opinion within our party did not exist, even when those disagreements were repeatedly made clear directly and publicly,” Sinema said. 

She and Manchin have both held several negotiating sessions with Biden and Democratic congressional leaders to try to iron out differences on the legislation but have yet to reach agreement. Both have said they do not support the $3.5 trillion in spending Biden originally proposed and progressive Democrats supported in the face of unified Republican opposition. 

“I’m listening to Sen. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema every day to see where we can get across the finish line,” Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois told CNN. 

Sanders remained optimistic about the eventual passage of both pieces of legislation.

“We’re going to win this,” he told ABC. 
…

Blinken Heads to France to Revitalize Transatlantic Alliance

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is heading to Paris, his first trip to France following an enhanced trilateral security partnership known as AUKUS (Australia, U.K., and the U.S.) that heightened tensions between the transatlantic allies.

Experts said they expect Blinken, who has strong personal ties to France, to use the upcoming trip to try to improve U.S.-France relations.

The top U.S. diplomat will chair the Ministerial Council Meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that is scheduled to take place Oct. 5-6, and commemorate the organization’s 60th anniversary.

Blinken will have a bilateral meeting with French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in Paris.France is set to hold the presidency of Council of the European Union from Jan. 1-June 30, 2022.

“Secretary Blinken will also meet with French counterparts to continue discussions on further strengthening the vital U.S.-France relationship on a range of issues including security in the Indo-Pacific region, the climate crisis, economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, the transatlantic relationship, and working with our allies and partners to address global challenges and opportunities,” said the State Department in a statement Friday.

Tensions over AUKUS deal

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration announced Sept. 15 a new security pact with Australia and the U.K. Under the deal, Australia will get at least eight nuclear-powered submarines to be built domestically using American technology. The agreement came after Australia pulled out of an earlier deal with France for diesel-electric submarines, angering Paris.

France recalled its ambassadors to the U.S. and to Australia within two days following the announcement. Le Drian declared there is a “crisis of trust” in the United States.

After a phone call between President Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron on Sept. 22 which sought to ease tensions over the submarine deal, both leaders decided to “open a process of in-depth consultations” to ensure “confidence.” Macron also decided that French Ambassador Philippe Etienne would return to Washington the following week.

On Thursday, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan met with Etienne at the White House to “continue advancing shared agenda,” in advance of Biden’s meeting with Macron in Europe at the end of October. Both are scheduled to attend the Group of 20 summit in Rome at that time.

“We need to make sure trust is there,” said Karen Donfried, the newly confirmed assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, in a phone briefing on Friday.

While the U.S.-France relationship remains an important one for both sides, James Goldgeier, who is a senior visiting fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said the Biden administration “seems to have been a bit taken aback by the angry French reaction” to the AUKUS deal.

“It’s good that the two presidents are looking for ways to move forward. There is no question that the Biden administration sees the Indo-Pacific as its main focus. U.S. policy toward regions like Europe are seen through that lens,” Goldgeier told VOA.

The State Department said in a statement that the U.S. delegation to OECD’s October ministerial also includes Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry and the U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.

OECD & China

The OECD gathering will discuss the climate crisis, promoting the transition to net-zero emissions, as well as market-economy principles while continuing its commitment on shared values such as democracy, rule of law, and human rights.

A senior State Department official said another focus during the upcoming OECD meeting is the Blue Dot Network, a mechanism to certify infrastructure projects that meet robust international quality standards.

The United States, Japan and Australia launched the Blue Dot Network in 2019. Named for the view of Earth from space as a mere “blue dot,” it encourages development by certifying public-private investments in global infrastructure that are market-driven, transparent, and environmentally sustainable.

“The administration is very interested in engaging like-minded partners and allies to talk about the behaviors of non-market economies, including China,” said Matt Murray, a senior official from the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, during a phone briefing on Friday.

Murray told VOA that China will participate in the upcoming OECD meeting as an observer.

“Separate from the ministerial council meeting, and more generally, the U.S. government has undertaken a comprehensive review of the U.S.-China trade relationship because the United States welcomes healthy, fair competition with our trading partners. And economic competition with the PRC should be fair,” added Murray.

Blinken heads to Mexico

Blinken’s weeklong trip also includes a stop at Stanford University, as well as meetings in Mexico City from Oct. 7-8 for the U.S.-Mexico High Level Security Dialogue.

The top U.S. diplomat will join U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to discuss security issues, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said this week.

The high-level meeting comes amid a recent migration crisis as tens of thousands of Haitian migrants gathered at the U.S.-Mexico border last month.

The Biden administration confirmed on Sept. 24 that a makeshift camp where 15,000 Haitian migrants braved desperate conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border was now vacant.

In late September, Mexico also began flying Haitian migrants back to their homeland.
…

Abortion, Guns, Religion Top Big US Supreme Court Term

The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning a new term Monday that also includes major cases on gun rights and religion. 

The court’s credibility with the public also could be on the line, especially if a divided court were to overrule the landmark Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 that established a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide. 

The justices are returning to the courtroom after an 18-month absence caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and the possible retirement of liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, also looms. 

It’s the first full term with the court in its current alignment.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the last of former President Donald Trump’s three high-court appointees, is part of a six-justice conservative majority. Barrett was nominated and confirmed last year amid the pandemic, little more than a month after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump and Republicans who controlled the Senate moved quickly to fill the seat shortly before the 2020 presidential election, bringing about a dramatic change in the court’s lineup that has set the stage for a potentially law-changing term on several high-profile issues. 

With abortion, guns and religion already on the agenda, and a challenge to affirmative action waiting in the wings, the court will answer a key question over the next year, said University of Chicago law professor David Strauss. “Is this the term in which the culture wars return to the Supreme Court in a big way?” Strauss said. 

Mississippi abortion case

No issue is bigger than abortion.

The justices will hear arguments December 1 in Mississippi’s bid to enforce a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts blocked the law because it is inconsistent with high-court rulings that allow states to regulate but not prohibit abortion before viability, the point around 24 weeks of pregnancy when a fetus can survive outside the womb. 

Mississippi is taking what conservative commentator Carrie Severino called a “rip-the-Band-Aid-off” approach to the case by asking the court to abandon its support of abortion rights that was laid out in Roe and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 

Mississippi is among 12 states with so-called trigger laws that would take effect if Roe is overturned and ban abortion entirely. 

By a 5-4 vote in early September, the court already has allowed a ban on most abortions to take effect in Texas, though no court has yet ruled on the substance of the law. 

But that vote and the Mississippi case highlight the potential risk to the court’s reputation, said David Cole, the American Civil Liberties Union’s legal director. The arguments advanced by Mississippi were considered and rejected by the Supreme Court in 1992, Cole said. 

“The only difference between then and now is the identity of the justices,” he said. 

Jeff Wall, a top Justice Department lawyer under Trump, said the court could sharply expand gun rights and end the use of race in college admissions, but only abortion is likely to move public perception of the court. “I still don’t think that’s going to create some groundswell in the public, unless it’s accompanied by some kind of watershed ruling on abortion,” Wall said.

Challenge to New York law

In early November, the court will take up a challenge to New York restrictions on carrying a gun in public, a case that offers the court the chance to expand gun rights under the Second Amendment. Before Barrett joined the court, the justices turned away similar cases, over the dissents of some conservative members of the court. 

Until Barrett came along, some justices who favor gun rights questioned whether Chief Justice John Roberts would provide a fifth, majority-making vote “for a more expansive reading of the Second Amendment,” said George Washington University law professor Robert Cottrol, who said he hoped the court would now broaden gun rights. 

More than 40 states already make it easy to be armed in public, but New York and California, two of the nation’s most populous states, are among the few with tighter regulations. 

The case has gun control advocates worried.

“An expansive Second Amendment ruling by the Supreme Court could restrict or prohibit the sensible solutions that have been shown can end gun violence,” said Jonathan Lowy, vice president and chief counsel at the gun violence prevention group Brady. Lowy included state laws requiring a justification to carry a gun as examples of such “sensible solutions.” 

A case from Maine gives the court another opportunity to weigh religious rights in the area of education. The state excludes religious schools from a tuition program for families who live in towns that don’t have public schools. 

Since even before Ginsburg’s death, the court has favored religion-based discrimination claims and the expectation among legal experts is that parents in Maine who sued to be able to use taxpayer money at religious schools will prevail, though it’s not clear how broadly the court might rule. 

Affirmative action is not yet on the court’s agenda, but it could still get there this term in a lawsuit over Harvard’s use of race in college admissions. Lower courts upheld the school’s policy, but this is another case in which the change in the composition of the court could prove decisive. The court upheld race-conscious admission policies as recently as five years ago but that was before Trump’s three appointments accentuated the court’s conservative tilt. 

Federal death penalty

Among other notable cases, the justices will consider reinstating the death sentence for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The Biden administration is pushing for the capital sentence, even as it has suspended federal executions and President Joe Biden has called for an end to the federal death penalty. 

The court will also weigh two cases involving “state secrets,” the idea that the government can block the release of information it claims would harm national security if disclosed. One case involves a Guantanamo Bay detainee who a lower court said was tortured in CIA custody. The other involves a group of Muslim residents of California who allege the FBI targeted them for surveillance because of their religion. 

Decisions in most of the big cases won’t come before spring because the justices typically spend months drafting and revising majority opinions and dissents. 

Around then, Breyer might signal whether he is planning to retire from a job he has held since 1994. Retirement announcements often come in the spring, to give the president and the Senate enough time to choose and confirm a nominee before the court returns from its summer break and begins hearing cases again in October.

The consequences of Ginsburg’s decision to remain on the court through Barack Obama’s presidency and her death while Trump was in the White House can’t be lost on Breyer, said Tom Goldstein, the founder of the Scotusblog website and a frequent advocate before the court. 

“It’s overwhelmingly likely he’ll retire this term,” Goldstein said. 

The courthouse still is closed to the public, but live audio of the court’s arguments will be available and reporters who regularly cover the court will be in attendance. The tradition-bound court first provided live audio in May 2020, when the court began hearing arguments by telephone during the pandemic. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh will participate remotely from his home next week during oral arguments after testing positive for COVID-19 despite being vaccinated. The court said Friday that the 54-year-old justice has no symptoms. 
…