Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments on Biden’s student loan plan

Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness

(Biden’s student loan plan) : WASHINGTON (AP) : The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program on Thursday, taking an important step toward resolving a months-long legal battle over whether the administration overstepped its authority by deciding to wipe out debt owed by tens of millions of Americans.

The high court put the program’s implementation on hold – for the time being. This means that Biden will be unable to implement loan forgiveness until the Supreme Court rules next year. The court stated that it would hear arguments in the case as early as February.

Six conservative states Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina filed a petition with the Supreme Court, claiming that Biden overstepped his legal authority and violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers by launching a loan forgiveness Program that is expected to affect 40 million Americans.

Biden enacted the debt relief plan as part of the HEROES Act. Which was passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, which sparked an American-led military campaign against terrorism. According to the administration, the act gives the president authority to forgive student loan debt in connection with military operations or national emergencies.

According to the Department of Education, the law allows for loan forgiveness for Americans experiencing financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the court denied the administration’s request to temporarily reinstate the program while it considers the case, the Biden administration has already extended a moratorium on student loan payments until June 30, 2023.

When will the Supreme Court issue its decision on loan forgiveness?

(Biden’s student loan plan) : The Biden administration’s appeal was initially heard on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, where cases are frequently resolved in days or weeks. By agreeing to hear oral arguments, the Supreme Court has moved the case to the merits docket. That is the more regular procedure it employs to hear the major cases on which it makes decisions each term.

That process may take longer. Both parties will submit a new set of written arguments. The court will then schedule and hear the arguments during its February sitting, which runs from February to early March. The justices will then begin the process of writing opinions. The court took just under four months on average to write opinions during the term that ended in June, though this case could move faster. The term of the Supreme Court usually ends in late June.

What have lower courts said about Biden’s plan for loan forgiveness?

(Biden’s student loan plan) : In October, a federal judge in Missouri denied the states’ request to halt the program. Ruling that they lacked standing to sue. Despite the fact that their case presented. “Significant and important challenges to the debt relief plan,” the trial court ruled that “the current plaintiffs are unable to proceed.” On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis granted the states’ request to temporarily halt the program.

The Biden administration filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

For people earning up to $125,000 per year or part of a household with total earnings of no more than $250,000, Biden’s plan would cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other borrowers.

In a separate lawsuit, a U.S. District Court in Texas halted the program as well. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans denied the Biden administration’s request for a stay of the decision late Wednesday, and the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The states’ case is the third time the loan forgiveness Program has been before the Supreme Court. On Oct. 20, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied an emergency appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayer group. Barrett denied the request to halt the Program without explanation, as is common on the emergency docket.

On November 4, she rejected a second challenge to the Program. A conservative legal group had filed an emergency appeal on behalf of two people that were entitled to “automatic” debt cancellation. The plaintiffs claimed that automatic debt cancellation would result in “excess tax liability under state law.”

However, those earlier denials on procedural grounds provide few. If any, hints as to the court’s view on the loan program’s legality. In fact, the high court’s 6-3 conservative majority has been Sceptical of presidential administrations. Efforts to approve broad policies without explicit congressional authorization.

Major Questions :

The Supreme Court rules against the EPA’s effort to regulate power plant emissions.

In January, the Supreme Court blocked Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-testing mandate for large employers. In addition, the Supreme Court rejected an EPA effort to reduce power plant emissions in June. On similar grounds, it blocked Biden’s eviction moratorium last year.

Conservatives have been pushing for years to limit the “administrative state.” They argue that federal agencies should have less authority to act unless clear congressional approval is obtained. In June, the Supreme Court bolstered that approach by deciding a climate change case using the “major questions doctrine.”

What are their thoughts on the Supreme Court’s loan forgiveness decision?

(Biden’s student loan plan) : White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a tweet on Thursday. That the administration was pleased with. “the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case on our student debt relief plan for middle and working class borrowers this February.”

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“The president’s attempt to cancel student loans for the vast majority of borrowers exceeds his legal authority,” Peterson said in a statement. “We reject the president’s political exploitation of our student loan program so close to an election.”