Supreme Court student loans

Conservative Supreme Court justices took a predictably dim view Tuesday of President Joe Biden's controversial plan to forgive up to $20000 in federal ...

“Like those millions of Black borrowers – and I was growing up in single-parent household – and given financial strain, I had no choice but to take out those loans. In fact, those states’ residents would benefit from the forgiveness. It’s time to start budgeting for the return of those long-deferred loan payments. “Well, what I was sharing is a story that is certainly no anomaly. “Right now, I have taken out a lot of loans. At arguments Tuesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was interested in the millions of people the potential debt forgiveness could affect. “And despite people’s Herculean efforts working multiple jobs, given rising costs, people are treading water. Those debtors will suffer in ways others won’t because of the pandemic, she said. Many of the conservative justices were concerned with fairness, executive overreach and the mechanics of whether states could bring their suit. But justices have recently been skeptical of Covid-related emergency arguments. He had been facing mounting pressure from Democratic lawmakers who called on the president to take executive action as it became clear Congress could not muscle through a more lasting proposal. But debt can hound people for decades.

Experts say it appears likely that student loan forgiveness will get thrown out based on the Supreme Court's desire to limit executive power.

[The HEROES Act](https://time.com/6251720/covid-19-emergency-ending-student-loan-forgiveness/) forms the legal basis for Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. “The compounding effects of those harms will mean that groups won’t be able to get on proper footing for a thriving economy and having the educational opportunities that they need and deserve,” Torres tells TIME. Even though Ahmed considers himself fortunate to work in a high-paying profession as an account executive, he says he’s “barely scratching the surface” when it comes to paying off his loans. [COVID-19 Changes the Heart](https://time.com/6256674/covid-19-affects-heart/?utm_source=roundup&utm_campaign=20230202) None of those borrowers have received aid because of the legal challenges. “I’m wondering whether that would be unfair to people who didn’t own a company or somebody who didn’t have… [TIME Turns 100](https://time.com/collection/a-century-of-impact/?utm_source=roundup&utm_campaign=20230202) The line of questioning was brought up based on the plaintiffs behind Department of Education v. Chief Justice John Roberts later brought up the “major questions doctrine,” which requires that agencies have clear congressional authorization when deciding on issues of major national significance. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to reject the fairness issue, saying that the same reasoning could be applied to any federal benefit program. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Members of the court heard two cases, Biden v.

The administration faced a conservative court that has insisted that government initiatives with major political and economic consequences be clearly ...

“Congress passed a statute that dealt with loan repayment for colleges, and it didn’t pass a statute that dealt with loan repayment for lawn businesses,” she said. “I may have views on the fairness of that and mine don’t count,” Chief Justice Roberts said. Given the inclination of the conservative justices to question the legality of the program, if the administration is to prevail it may have to do so on the standing question. “And so Congress made a choice, and that may have been the right choice or it may have been the wrong choice, but that’s Congress’s choice.” “The whole point of this statute, its central mission and function, is to ensure that in the face of a national emergency that is causing financial harm to borrowers, the secretary can do something,” she said. “Its financial interests are totally disentangled from the state, it stands alone, it’s incorporated separately, the state is not liable for anything that happens to MOHELA,” she said. The challengers argued that its potential losses from the loan forgiveness program were enough to confer standing because it is effectively an arm of the State of Missouri. Prelogar conceded that the loan authority would have standing had it chosen to sue in its own name. indicated that the ordinary colloquial meaning of “major questions” encompassed “what the government proposes to do with student loans.” The administration was spurred to act because of the pandemic and its lingering effects. If the administration is to prevail, it would probably be on the ground that none of the plaintiffs in the two cases had established standing to sue, but that outcome did not seem likely, either. “It doesn’t say modify or waive loan balances,” the chief justice said.

The Biden administration squared off with legal challengers to its sweeping student debt relief plan at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the justices held ...

“Many of them don’t have assets sufficient to bail them out after the pandemic,” the Obama appointee said. “What you’re saying is now we’re going to give judges the right to decide how much aid to give them,” Sotomayor said during an exchange with Campbell. The Biden administration last August rescinded the department’s legal opinion and issued its own memo concluding that the HEROES Act provides a basis for broad-based debt relief. The evidence is clear that many of them will have to default. “Congress used its voice in enacting this piece of legislation,” the Obama appointee said, referring to the 2003 law allowing the Education secretary to waive various rules during emergencies. “If MOHELA was willing to hand you over the documents, you wouldn’t have filed a state FOIA request,” she said. “Some of the biggest mistakes in the Court’s history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power. “Do you think there might be a dependent relationship between agencies like MOHELA and the federal government since we’re speculating about why they’re not here?” Some of the finest moments in the Court’s history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power. “I’m not saying I agree with that,” the conservative justice quickly added, muddling the question. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the conservative justices they were making a mistake to put so much emphasis on the overall cost and insisted it was proportionate to the need. The three liberal justices and Amy Coney Barrett all raised questions about whether the states had standing to bring the case.

Conservative justices appear skeptical about Biden's authority for his plan to clear up to $20000 in debt.

Hayes said: “We have attempted to do a lot in terms of student access to education and increasing access for students from marginalized communities, but we don’t necessarily support them in those endeavors. The main hope for Biden appears to be a slim possibility that the court would find that states and individuals challenging the scheme did not actually have the legal right to sue. If you’re going to affect the obligations of that many Americans on a subject that’s of great controversy, they would think that’s something for Congress to act on,” Roberts said. “If you’re talking about this in the abstract, I think most casual observers would say if you’re going to give up that much … The plan, if it stands, could wipe out up to $400bn of student debt. [The president’s plan](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/aug/25/biden-student-loan-debt-forgiveness) to clear up to $20,000 in debt for nearly 40 million student loan borrowers has hit several roadblocks since it was announced in August last year amid staunch Republican opposition that has taken to the courts to block it.

It comes after President Joe Biden, a Democrat, announced a plan last year to forgive up to $10,000 (£8,400) in federal student loans per borrower. So far, ...

And even if the court sides with the government, more legal challenges may yet be filed. But relief is on hold as legal challenges to the plan make their way through the courts. They were joined by some of the Democratic Party's most outspoken figures on student debt. If so, they would have the legal right to sue and prevent the plan from being implemented in its current form. Mrs Prelogar replied that, in the given context, "modify" could entail making broad changes to protect borrowers. How does that fit under the normal understanding of modified?"

The fate of student debt relief promised for some 40 million Americans is in the hands of the Supreme Court. The justices heard arguments in high-stakes ...

Now, keep in mind that borrowers have not made payments, most borrowers, federal student loan borrowers, have not made payments on their loans for nearly three years at this stage. I think it's really telling that the administration's chose to add, essentially, a Pell Grant bonus allowing for borrowers who had federal Pell Grants for low-income students to receive an additional $10,000. And they were asking whether they should factor into their analysis the idea of fairness here. John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S. Justice Thomas was saying, well, waive and modify, how does that amount to cancellation, as can happen in some of the student loans that have — that are being looked at here? The court said in June in a case involving the Clean Air Act and EPA that if an agency issues a policy that has serious major political and economic consequences, then the express authorization of Congress is required. It is a huge hurdle, and my sense after the arguments was also that the lawyers for the challengers were not making really as strong an argument as the government made to oppose standing. And it is always hard to predict, but my sense after the questioning was that there may be five conservative justices who, looking at the merits of the case, would not uphold the student loan forgiveness program. And to talk about what's at stake, Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, a Washington Post national education reporter. Some of that is private. Some of that is public. The justices heard arguments today in high-stakes cases over the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.

President Joe Biden's student loan debt relief plan would forgive up to $20000 for borrowers. The Supreme Court could rule on the legality of it this ...

"The evidence is clear that many of them will have to default, their financial situation will be even worse because once you default, the hardship on you is exponentially greater." "I hope they decide to get rid of student debt and lift that weight." have planned their lives around not seeking loans, and people who are not eligible for loans in the first place," he said. The Heroes Act is a product of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and an earlier version of it provided relief to We're not going to be responsible for any of its contracts. "He needs clear congressional authorization for such power, which he doesn't have because the Heroes Act does not authorize this program," Campbell said. "There's 50 million students who ... We're not going to be responsible for its debts. asked Roberts, who is part of the court's They don't have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments," Sotomayor said. We're not going to be responsible for anything it does financially,'" Sotomayor said. "Death to student debt" and "Student debt cancellation is legal" read signs carried by the demonstrators.

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism over the legality of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for ...

And then along comes the government and tells that person, 'You don't have to pay your loan,'" Roberts said. Biden's plan fulfilled his 2020 campaign promise to cancel a portion of $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. A 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, authorizes the U.S. How does that fit under the normal understanding of 'modify'?" "Of course, we acknowledge that this is an economically significant action," Prelogar said. government would forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for Americans making under $125,000 who obtained loans to pay for college and other post-secondary education and $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants to students from lower-income families.

The justices seem to be clearly leaning against the Biden Administration on the merits. The procedural issue of standing is a closer call, though ultimately ...

In the oral argument, the Brown plaintiffs' counsel argued that, if the court rules that the current loan forgiveness plan is illegal, the Biden Administration might go back to the drawing board and draft a new—hopefully more generous!—plan under the Higher Education Act of 1965. [somewhat screwy case](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/12/supreme-court-decides-to-hear-second-case-challenging-legality-of-bidens-loan-forgiveness-plan/) brought by the conservative Job Creators Network on behalf of two plaintiffs who complain that the Biden program isn't generous enough, excluding one of them completely and forgiving less of the other's debt than might have otherwise been the case. New York](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-966), the 2019 case challenging the legality of the Trump Administration's plans for the 2020 census, on the basis that "undercounting the state's population "would have potential effects to the State of New York in the term—in terms of the benefits it might later receive, that kind of knock-on effect was sufficient to constitute standing in that case." I have previously gone over the substantive issues [here](https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/dont-let-the-executive-abuse-emergency-powers-to-raid-the-treasury/) and [here](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/03/bidens-student-loan-cancellation-is-a-trumpian-abuse-of-emergency-powers/), and standing [here](https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/09/third-party-standing-doctrine-shouldnt-block-lawsuits-challenging-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/), [here](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/14/8th-circuit-rules-states-have-standing-to-challenge-bidens-loan-forgiveness-plan/), and [here](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/10/20/federal-court-issues-dubious-decision-dismissing-six-state-lawsuit-against-biden-loan-forgiveness-program-for-lack-of-standing/). In addition, if a majority of justices thought that no plaintiff has standing, [they would probably not have left in place the lower court injunctions blocking implementation of the loan forgiveness plan](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/01/supreme-court-will-hear-case-on-legality-of-biden-loan-forgiveness-plan/). But she argues that the state of Missouri lacks standing to bring a case on MOHELA's behalf, because the latter has an independent corporate status, and has the legal right to sue and be sued. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that a majority of the Court had granted state standing in While the AG may not have the authority to issue orders to MOHELA, he does have the power to bring lawsuits on behalf of the state as a whole, to advance any of the state's interests—including those involving the assets of administratively independent state agencies. [my view](https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/dont-let-the-executive-abuse-emergency-powers-to-raid-the-treasury/), the latter is the biggest legal weakness of the plan. None of the justices seemed sympathetic to Prelogar's argument that the major questions doctrine applies only to regulations, but not to federal benefits. Justice Sotomayor (who was sympathetic to the government on almost every other point), rightly pointed out that "the amount at issue, the Chief [Justice] mentioned the quarter [of] a trillion dollars or the half a trillion dollars… It is possible that Justice Amy Coney Barrett will join the three liberals in concluding that none of the plaintiffs have standing.

The Supreme Court held a blockbuster hearing today on President Biden's sweeping plan to enact mass student loan forgiveness.

A favorable ruling could result in approved borrowers receiving student loan forgiveness within a matter of weeks of a decision. “It is very hard for me to say" that there can be any sufficient relationship between MOHELA and the state of Missouri for MOHELA to have standing, she said. The administration has also maintained the challengers are unable to demonstrate that the student loan forgiveness plan results in a sufficiently concrete injury that would allow them to have “standing” to sue in the first place. On the issue of standing, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to dismiss the idea that courts should not have the ability to weigh in on such a significant program, suggesting that the cases present “extraordinary concerns” about the separation of powers. She argued Congress knew exactly what it was doing when it established sweeping authority for a secretary of education to waive or modify provisions of federal student loan programs, including those related to loan repayment and discharge. Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Congress “could have in 2003 referred to ‘loan cancellation’ and ‘loan forgiveness’ ” in the text of the HEROES Act, but did not include those specific phrases, saying that “seems problematic.” This statute provides broad authority for the Education Department to “modify” or “waive” federal student loan programs in response to a national emergency, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, argued that the program falls squarely within the authority of the HEROES Act, and that Congress contemplated such broad relief when it enacted the legislation in 2003. The Court’s three liberal justices hammered the challengers on the issue of standing. If the Court rules in favor of the administration, it could be solely on the issue of standing, or on the underlying merits of the administration’s legal authority. The states focused primarily on MOHELA, a FFELP guaranty agency and loan servicer that was not an actual party in the lawsuit. Biden’s unprecedented student loan forgiveness proposal would cancel up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt for up to 40 million borrowers.

Conservative justices holding the Supreme Court's majority seem ready to sink President Joe Biden's plan to wipe away or reduce student loans held by ...

The administration says that 26 million people have applied to have up to $20,000 in federal student loans forgiven under the plan. Republican-led states and lawmakers in Congress, as well as conservative legal interests, are lined up against the plan as a violation of Biden’s executive authority. “Nobody’s telling the person who is trying to set up the lawn service business that he doesn’t have to pay his loan,” Roberts said. A federal judge initially found that the states would not be harmed and dismissed their lawsuit before Biden’s plan would lift a burden for her mother, who borrowed more than $20,000 in federal student loans to help Smith attend college. The law was primarily intended to keep service members from being hurt financially while they fought in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Some of the biggest mistakes in the court’s history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power,” Kavanaugh said. “If you’re talking about this in the abstract, I think most casual observers would say if you’re going to give up that much … Those earlier programs halted by the court were billed largely as public health measures intended to slow the spread of COVID-19. “Their financial situation will be even worse because once you default, the hardship on you is exponentially greater. Three times, the chief justice said the program would cost a half-trillion dollars, pointing to its wide impact and hefty expense as reasons the administration should have gotten explicit approval from Congress. Loan payments that have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic three years ago are supposed to resume no later than this summer.