The Supreme Court’s conservative justices cast doubt on President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan during oral arguments today in a pair of challenges to the administration’s relief program. In the first case, Biden v. Nebraska, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical that Congress gave clear enough authorization for the Biden administration to forgive billions of dollars in student debt. But conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in questioning whether a group of Republican-led states had legal standing to challenge Biden’s plan. The Hill as the full story.

The U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow will hear a pair of cases challenging President Joe Biden's appeal of rulings that struck down his administration’s effort to cancel billions of dollars in student debt. So far, Republican-appointed judges have kept the plan from going into effect. A Texas federal judge deemed the program unlawful, and the 8th Circuit upheld an injunction in a separate case brought by a group of Republican states. The justices have scheduled two hours of arguments in the case, though it will probably go longer, the Associated Press reports. The public can listen in on the court’s website beginning at 10 a.m. EST.

The U.S. Supreme Court will not consider when criminal defense attorneys are obligated to start negotiating plea deals for their client, Bloomberg Law reports. The justices decided yesterday not to hear a Florida man’s claim that his attorney failed to adequately advise him on his plea. Quartavious Davis chose to plead not guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to 159 years for seven armed robberies. His co-defendants pleaded guilty and got lighter sentences. In a dissenting opinion, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor wrote that they would have heard the case, saying it was “a clear opportunity … to resolve a circuit split regarding whether having an actual plea offer is an indispensable prerequisite to making the necessary showing of prejudice.”

The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this week that challenges Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Gonzalez v. Google contests the 1996 law, alleging that tech companies are liable for content posted on their platforms.

The U.S. Supreme Court today removed from its calendar the March 1 oral argument about Title 42, which limits migrants’ ability to seek asylum amid the coronavirus pandemic, The Hill reports. The justices were set to consider 19 GOP-led states’ attempt to intervene in the case and maintain the policy, which was first implemented under former President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden’s administration last week filed a brief suggesting the case will become moot once the administration revokes the public health emergency on May 11. In April, the Biden administration moved to revoke Title 42, but the decision quickly came under legal challenges that led lower courts to reinstate the policy.

For the first time since March 2020, the justices took the bench last week for in-person opinion announcements, SCOTUSblog reports. Announcements were not livestreamed but the blog provided live coverage of the session. Among the decisions announced, the court said it unanimously rejected a case that sought to expand attorney-client privilege. Chief Justice John Roberts explained the decision saying the “writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.” Finally, the court released a list of orders and new cases it will consider.

U.S. Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley on Friday clarified earlier remarks about the probe into the leaked Dobbs decision saying that she questioned the nine justices but did not require them to sign sworn affidavits. Bloomberg reports that all other 97 employees who were interviewed did sign such statements. “The justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine,” Curley said in a statement. “I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses.” She added that she “did not believe that it was necessary to ask the justices to sign sworn affidavits.” The TBA Today story on Jan. 19 indicated that all those interviewed signed sworn affidavits.

A new report says the Supreme Court may not be able to determine who leaked the draft opinion which struck down Roe v. Wade, The Hill reports. The public report revealed that, beyond the Supreme Court justices, 82 court employees had access to the draft opinion. All those interviewed signed sworn affidavits denying they disclosed the opinion, except for a few who admitted telling their spouses. Investigators collected court-issued laptops and mobile devices from all those with access to the draft, but “found no relevant information from these devices.” Also examined were connections between court employees and reporters, especially contacts made with Politico. Although the source of the leak is still unknown, the report did conclude that it was likely not a result of a hack. It also listed seven steps the court could take to prevent a future leak. Read the report.

The U.S. Supreme Court added eight cases to its docket for this term, SCOTUSblog reports. Among the cases accepted, it will consider two lawsuits accusing pharmacy operators of overbilling government health insurance programs; a case dealing with immigrant deportations; the impact of state criminal laws in cases involving obstruction of justice; and the religious liberty claims of a U.S. Postal Service employee who refused to deliver packages on Sundays. Get analysis here.

During oral arguments this week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan told a lawyer representing an unnamed international tax law firm proposing to expand attorney-client privilege that such a change “is a big ask.” She instead suggested following the “ancient legal principle” of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” the ABA Journal reports. Chief Justice John Roberts also seemed skeptical, saying the new test “really puts a lot of work on the judge” hearing the challenge. The American Bar Association is supporting the expanded protection. It says that clients often discuss multiple topics with lawyers that aren’t exclusively law-related, and such discussions “should be protected as a whole, not parsed sentence by sentence or phrase by phrase.” Read the group's amicus brief.