The legal dispute over President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, which is now being thwarted by two different judgments, is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is getting ready to weigh in. But according to legal experts, there are still obstacles that will prevent debtors from receiving relief even if the court rules in favor of the Biden Administration.
In a petition on Friday, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pleaded with the Supreme Court to set the case for expedited briefing and argument this term in order to prevent prolonging this uncertainty for the millions of impacted borrowers.
In order to “provide the Supreme Court an opportunity to hear the case in its present term,” Biden stated on Tuesday that the Education Department will prolong the pandemic-related moratorium on student loan repayment while the legal process is ongoing.
Following the start of the debt-forgiveness program or following the conclusion of any legal challenges, student loan payments will restart 60 days later. Student loan repayments will start again 60 days after June 30, 2023, if a settlement is not reached before then.
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona stated in a statement that it would be “extremely unfair” to ask borrowers to pay a debt that they wouldn’t be required to pay if it weren’t for the spurious lawsuits filed by Republican officials and special interests.
Around 40 million borrowers would receive up to $20,000 in debt forgiveness under the debt relief scheme, but it was placed on hold earlier this month when the program was disallowed by a federal judge in Texas.
Then, on November 14, the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit imposed a preliminary injunction against it while reviewing a different lawsuit.
Prelogar wrote in the brief that the Eighth Circuit’s incorrect order “leaves millions of economically disadvantaged borrowers in limbo, unclear about the extent of their debt and unable to make financial choices with a thorough awareness of their upcoming payback obligations.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is difficult to predict, according to legal experts, because there are so many complex issues involved. Eventually, the court might make a decision regarding the student loan forgiveness program’s legality. The court is now just debating whether to uphold the Eighth Circuit’s injunction prohibiting the program from continuing.
For the Biden administration and for real people, Tara Grove, a professor at the University Of Texas School Of Law who specializes in the federal courts and the separation of powers, “What matters is whether the current situation of affairs persists.”
Grove believes that it is possible that the Supreme Court will maintain the injunction during the appeals process, but she also believes that it is equally likely that the court will find that the plaintiffs lack standing (i.e., that they would not be immediately harmed by the policy) and lift the restriction on student loan forgiveness.
Thomas Bennett, an assistant teacher of law at the College of Missouri who specializes in federal courts and constitutional law, asserts that the Supreme Court has thus far demonstrated a reluctance to intervene in lower court cases involving this preliminary injunction-type of issues.
And he adds that the debt relief program was also prohibited by a federal judge in Texas in a different case, so just overturning this injunction won’t allow it to resume. That judgment was challenged by the Justice Department.
Bennett asserts that the Supreme Court won’t likely resolve these preliminary problems until each of those cases comes before it.
The plaintiffs were required by the Supreme Court to submit a reply by Wednesday.
The debate around the case has mostly centered on whether the plaintiffs, six Republican-led states that claim they would suffer damages from lost tax income as a result of debt cancellation, have the legal right to file a lawsuit. U.S. officials claim that the program’s “impact on future taxation is questionable.” District Judge Henry Autrey initially rejected the lawsuit in October, finding that the states lacked legal standing.
The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a student loan servicer, will lose money as a result of debt cancellation. Despite the fact that the court has not yet made a decision regarding the case’s legal merits, it granted a preliminary injunction, noting that the outcome will have an impact on the financial situation of Missouri, one of the six states.
It’s unclear if the Supreme Court will concur with that justification. But the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency from 2007 offers some insight into the court’s perspective on state standing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the premise that states merit “particular solicitude,” or extra care while attempting to establish legal standing, voting 5-4 to find that Massachusetts had the right to sue the agency.
However, the court’s current composition is different, and its conservative majority might produce a different result.
Along with the conservative justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in the 2007 decision, claiming that Massachusetts should not have had to stand to file a lawsuit since the state had not actually suffered harm. Roberts stated in his dissent that “the constitutional function of the courts, however, is to judge actual cases—not to serve as a convenient platform for policy disputes.”
Grove claims that in resolving the standing issue, the Eighth Circuit “adopted a restricted approach,” concentrating primarily on Missouri.
According to her, if any state had the legal right to file a lawsuit against the federal government over a policy because of how it affected tax receipts, it could lead to legal action against a variety of federal policies. The Eighth Circuit, according to Grove, “obviously tried to approve a litigation that would not open the floodgates to hundreds of other standing arguments.”
The Eighth Circuit’s justification for the injunction was disputed by the Biden Administration, which also asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file a lawsuit.
Beyond the standing issue, analysts suggest that if the Supreme Court does decide to deliberate on the legal issues raised in this case, based on recent rulings against presidential actions, the justices may rule against the Biden Administration.
According to Michigan State University law professor Michael Sant’Ambrogio, who specializes in administrative law, federal courts, and constitutional law, “it’s certainly plausible that judges who are kind of dubious of executive action or administrative action will strike it down and injunction it.” “At this time, the risk is extremely substantial.”
According to the Biden Administration, the President has the legal right to implement the debt-forgiveness plan.
Speaking on behalf of the administration, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, “We’re asking the nation’s highest court to empower us to deliver student debt relief to millions of middle-class Americans. We won’t permit these frivolous lawsuits to stop us.” They said, “since we are certain in our legal right to carry out this initiative.”
To get all university updates instantly and all assignment related help then keep in touch with our latest blog and infographics section.