May 17, 2004

Law - Three U.S. Supreme Court decisions of interest

According to this posting on Bloomberg News:

May 17 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court gave consumers a victory in a dispute over how much interest secured creditors can charge on debts in some personal-bankruptcy cases.

The court ruled for an Indiana couple who claimed a lender shouldn't be allowed to charge 21 percent interest on a truck loan as part of their Chapter 13 debt-restructuring plan. The ruling lets the couple seek an interest rate based on the prime lending rate, which was 8 percent at the time of their bankruptcy case in 1999 and now is 4 percent.

This case is TILL et ux. v. SCS CREDIT CORP.

In a second Bloomberg News entry:

May 17 (Bloomberg) -- Former students can go to federal bankruptcy court to seek discharge of state-guaranteed loans, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, saying sovereign immunity doesn't shield states from those cases.

The court ruled 7-2 against Tennessee's student loan corporation, which argued that it has immunity from a federal bankruptcy case filed by a former college student who seeks to avoid repaying her loan. The justices said the concept of sovereign immunity doesn't apply in bankruptcy cases.

The decision was one of two today rejecting state bids for immunity and refusing to extend a line of rulings that have insulted states from lawsuits claiming age bias, patent infringement and unfair trade practices. The court also ruled today that states can be forced to pay financial damages for failing to make courthouses accessible to the disabled.

The case is Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood.

In the third notable opinion issued today, according to this AP story on the NY Times website:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court upheld the rights of disabled people under a national law meant to protect them, ruling Monday that a paraplegic who crawled up the steps of a small-town courthouse can sue over the lack of an elevator.

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act properly gives private citizens such as George Lane the right to seek money in court if a state fails to live up to the law's requirements, a 5-to-4 majority ruled. In previous cases, the high court has repeatedly limited the effect of the ADA, so Monday's outcome was unexpected.

This case is Tennessee v. Lane.

[Update] Here is comprehensive coverage from the Washington Post. And here is 5/18/04 NY Times coverage.

Posted by Marcia Oddi at May 17, 2004 02:43 PM