The Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Biden’s student-loan forgiveness executive order, finding that the statute the administration relied on in issuing the order does not give the secretary of education sweeping authority to forgive billions in student loans for tens of millions of Americans.
In the first of two cases the Court rule unanimously that the individual plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue because they failed to establish harm. But in the second case, the Court ruled 6-3 that the state of Missouri had standing to sue and convincingly argued that President Biden lacked the authority to forgive student loans for entire categories of borrowers under the HEROES Act.
In August of last year, the Biden administration announced an executive order that would cancel up to $20,000 in federal student-loan debt for those making less than $125,000 in income per year. The administration invoked the HEROES Act to justify the plan. It was the same statute that was invoked by former president Donald Trump’s education secretary, Betsey DeVos, to pause student-loan payments as well as the accrual of interest early in the pandemic.
The Biden administration has argued that the Education Department under Miguel Cardona acted within the bounds of the statute, which was passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks to ensure that Americans would not be financially worse off after their military service. The challengers have claimed that Congress did not give the executive branch the power to enact such a major debt-relief program, costing over $400 billion, and that there is little evidence that all recipients of student loans are in a worse financial position due to the pandemic.
The Supreme Court heard the two challenges in February. The program was challenged by a group of Republican states that argued that the cancellation exceeds the Department’s authority and was arbitrary and capricious, as more incremental relief was not considered. It was also challenged by two individuals — Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor. Brown was not eligible for relief because she held commercial loans and Taylor was not eligible for the full $20,000 because he was not a Pell Grant recipient. Had they been allowed to, Brown and Taylor would have submitted comments arguing for a more expansive plan.
Whether the challengers had standing to sue was an important point of contention in both cases. In the former case, the six states lost on standing in district court. The Biden administration argued that the injury to the states was too speculative. In the latter case, the administration said the asserted injury is a complete mismatch to the relief sought: Brown and Taylor claim to want a more expansive plan, but also argue the HEROES Act doesn’t authorize the plan.
…
The Covid-19 pandemic ended in May and the Biden administration announced student-loan payments would resume after the summer, later codified in the debt-ceiling deal. The Department of Education confirmed this week that interest would start accruing in September and payments would resume in October.
Comments
Post a Comment