The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant the Biden administration's request that it lift a lower court’s injunction on the student loan debt forgiveness plan Thursday, but it did grant the administration’s request for an expedited hearing. That will happen in February. In the meantime, President Joe Biden has extended the repayment pause through June.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett had previously turned down two earlier requests from plaintiffs suing the administration to block it, but when the federal appeals court in Missouri put the program on hold, the administration asked the court to intervene, either through lifting the lower court’s ruling or scheduling the case for argument quality to definitely decide the legality of the program.
Biden announced the forgiveness program in August. The program cancels up to $10,000 in debt for all student borrowers who have an annual income less than $125,000 (or $250,000 for married couples) and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients a the same income levels. At that point, the plan was to end the pause on repayments at the end of this month. The Republican states’—Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina—decision to sue means that the pause, legally justified because of the ongoing pandemic, stays in place.
RELATED: Biden on student debt relief: ‘We’re not going to back down,’ extends repayment pause through June
The states argue that Biden’s program exceeds his executive authority, and also that they have the right to sue because it deprives them of future tax revenue. That’s their argument for having the standing to sue—that they have been harmed by the program. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar contested both those assertions by the states in the administration’s emergency application to the Court.
The Heroes Act of 2003, she wrote, was enacted specifically to give the secretary of education the power to halt student loan payments in the case of a national emergency. In 2003, it was intended for service members going to war, but the legislation wasn’t specifically tailored to those borrowers and that emergency. The COVID-19 crisis and the emergency declaration that’s been in effect since March 2020 under Trump qualify.
She also argued that the states don’t have standing because they haven’t suffered an injury—those supposed tax revenues they’ll be missing. The lower court, the Eight Circuit, considered just one state in blocking the program, Missouri, which might not receive payments from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a nonprofit that services federal loans. At most, she argued, the loans serviced by that non-profit MOHELA could be excluded from the program.
The Court is going to address both of those questions: Do the Republican states have standing, and “whether the plan exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.”
It is worth noting again what Laura Clawson surfaced back in August, when Republicans were enraged at the idea of people being forgiven loans: There wasn’t a peep out of them when it was their COVID-19 pandemic Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Literally their loans: More than a dozen Republican House members received tens and hundreds of thousands, and in a few cases millions, of free federal dollars. There wasn’t a peep out of any of them about giving away free money to people taking out loans. (Disclosure: Kos Media received a Paycheck Protection Program loan.)
RELATED STORIES
Biden exceeds expectations with student debt relief announcement
If only there was another recent example of the federal government forgiving loans ...
White House considers next moves after GOP judges rule against student debt relief
Justice Amy Coney Barrett had previously turned down two earlier requests from plaintiffs suing the administration to block it, but when the federal appeals court in Missouri put the program on hold, the administration asked the court to intervene, either through lifting the lower court’s ruling or scheduling the case for argument quality to definitely decide the legality of the program.
Biden announced the forgiveness program in August. The program cancels up to $10,000 in debt for all student borrowers who have an annual income less than $125,000 (or $250,000 for married couples) and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients a the same income levels. At that point, the plan was to end the pause on repayments at the end of this month. The Republican states’—Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina—decision to sue means that the pause, legally justified because of the ongoing pandemic, stays in place.
RELATED: Biden on student debt relief: ‘We’re not going to back down,’ extends repayment pause through June
The states argue that Biden’s program exceeds his executive authority, and also that they have the right to sue because it deprives them of future tax revenue. That’s their argument for having the standing to sue—that they have been harmed by the program. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar contested both those assertions by the states in the administration’s emergency application to the Court.
The Heroes Act of 2003, she wrote, was enacted specifically to give the secretary of education the power to halt student loan payments in the case of a national emergency. In 2003, it was intended for service members going to war, but the legislation wasn’t specifically tailored to those borrowers and that emergency. The COVID-19 crisis and the emergency declaration that’s been in effect since March 2020 under Trump qualify.
She also argued that the states don’t have standing because they haven’t suffered an injury—those supposed tax revenues they’ll be missing. The lower court, the Eight Circuit, considered just one state in blocking the program, Missouri, which might not receive payments from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a nonprofit that services federal loans. At most, she argued, the loans serviced by that non-profit MOHELA could be excluded from the program.
The Court is going to address both of those questions: Do the Republican states have standing, and “whether the plan exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.”
It is worth noting again what Laura Clawson surfaced back in August, when Republicans were enraged at the idea of people being forgiven loans: There wasn’t a peep out of them when it was their COVID-19 pandemic Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Literally their loans: More than a dozen Republican House members received tens and hundreds of thousands, and in a few cases millions, of free federal dollars. There wasn’t a peep out of any of them about giving away free money to people taking out loans. (Disclosure: Kos Media received a Paycheck Protection Program loan.)
RELATED STORIES
Biden exceeds expectations with student debt relief announcement
If only there was another recent example of the federal government forgiving loans ...
White House considers next moves after GOP judges rule against student debt relief