h/t to Democracy Now’s June 30, 2023 broadcast

The U.S. Supreme Court has come under scrutiny for recent controversial decisions, questions about transparency, and concerns about ethics.

But two reports have come out that call into question the standing of petitioners for two separate Supreme Court cases:

The Student Loan Case’s Unwilling Participant – The American Prospect

In Biden v. Nebraska, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) was the key plaintiff. The claim was that the Biden administration’s plan to forgive student debt would harm MOHELA. The state of Missouri claimed that MOHELA would lose revenue and be therefore unable to repay money into a Missouri state fund for in-state schools.

However, MOHELA did not file, was not party to the suit, and did not support the case. MOHELA only found out about the lawsuit on the day it was filed back in September, 2022.

As for the state fund MOHELA allegedly would be unable to contribute to — MOHELA hasn’t contributed to that fund in 15 years.

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court – The New Republic

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court looked into a case brought by a Colorado web designer opposed to making websites for same-sex marriages. She argued that a Colorado state anti-discrimination statute cannot compel her to create products that include speech with which she disagrees. The web designer claimed she was contacted in 2016 by “Stewart” for design work for his marriage to “Mike.”

Justice Sotomayor stated this case could be “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.”

Turns out, Stewart is married to a woman and never requested design work. When contacted by a reporter to ask about the case, he replied this was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.” His name, contact information, and website info were all correct. Stewart went on:

“If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that … I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website? I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document … I disagree with this, in the strongest possible terms. I couldn’t disagree with her stance more.”

It didn’t take long for reporters to uncover these two instances of unwitting and unwilling “plaintiffs” in Supreme Court cases.

Regardless of how you feel about the decisions for these two cases, wouldn’t it be reasonable for everyone to agree that cases should only be valid with actual plaintiffs who have filed and are supportive of the cases in which they are named? Furthermore, I would argue any decisions based on cases filed by fake and/or falsified plaintiffs should be vacated.

UPDATE: Former Solicitor General Neal Katyal claims Colorado’s attorney general can ask to rehear the 303 Creative case based on the fact that the case was made up.

Several legal scholars disagree, however. But they say the attorneys who argued the case may be subject to judicial discipline.