The Supreme Court has released several new decisions this week, but a ruling on President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is still in the works. The plan, if it’s allowed to move forward, would provide $10,000 or $20,000 in one-time student debt relief to over 30 million borrowers.
While Americans are still awaiting the Court’s decision, one of the opinions released today may contain significant clues as to how the justices may rule on the legal challenges to Biden’s loan forgiveness plan. No two cases are identical, and judges are experts at making factual distinctions and nuanced justifications. But the legal conclusions made in this key decision could have ramifications for the parties challenging Biden’s debt relief plan.
Standing Is Key Legal Issue In Student Loan Forgiveness Cases Before The Supreme Court
One of the central legal questions in the two legal challenges before the Supreme Court is whether the Biden administration’s legal authority to enact the student loan forgiveness plan is valid. The administration established the debt relief plan under the HEROES Act, a 2003 statute that allows the Secretary of Education to change the rules regarding federal student loan programs, including provisions related to repayment and loan discharge, in response to a national emergency (such as the Covid-19 pandemic). At least five Supreme Court justices — a majority — seemed deeply skeptical that Congress had contemplated such massive student debt relief when it passed the HEROES Act two decades ago in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
But the Biden administration’s HEROES Act authority is not the only legal issue before the Supreme Court. The other major question is whether the parties that initiated the legal challenges have “standing” to sue, within the meaning of Article III of the United States constitution. Standing is the legal concept that in order to challenge a federal law, rule, or policy, a party has to show that they would be harmed by it. And that harm must be sufficiently concrete and directly tied to the challenged rule or statute.
Injuries that are too speculative, disconnected from the challenged policy, or not redressable through the relief being sought are not sufficient to confer standing. A party also generally does not have standing if they file a lawsuit based on a harm incurred by someone else (this is sometimes referred to as third-party standing). And there are special considerations when states are the ones bringing a legal challenge. Ultimately, without standing, a party cannot sue and is not entitled to the relief they are trying to obtain.
The Biden administration and a number of individuals and organizations who submitted briefs to the Supreme Court have consistently argued that the parties challenging the student loan forgiveness program do not have Article III standing. The case that many observers believe is the strongest challenge was brought by a group of GOP-led states, headed by Nebraska and Missouri. This coalition of states argued that Biden’s loan forgiveness program would financially harm MOHELA, a state-related student loan servicer. That financial harm would, in turn, lead to a loss by the state, they argued.
But attorneys for the government pointed out during February oral arguments before the Supreme Court that MOHELA is, by statute, legally and financially independent of the state of Missouri. MOHELA has authority to sue, and be sued, in its own name, and has only a relatively minimal financial connection to the state treasury.
At the Supreme Court hearing last February, four justices — including Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett — made comments suggesting that the challengers may not have standing. In particular, Justice Barrett pressed attorneys for the state challengers why MOHELA was not the entity suing if the agency in fact would be harmed by Biden’s plan, and why MOHELA was not forced to join the suit if — as the challengers argued — the agency was more or less part of the state government apparatus.
Latest Supreme Court Rulings May Be Important In Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Cases
On Friday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in United States v. Texas, a case involving a dispute over federal immigration policy. In that case, the states of Texas and Louisiana sued the federal government over claims that they incurred costs related to immigration enforcement that should have been handled by the federal government. In an 8-1 decision, the Court concluded that the states do not have Article III standing.
In his majority opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “As this Court’s precedents amply demonstrate, Article III standing is ‘not merely a troublesome hurdle to be overcome if possible so as to reach the ‘merits’ of a lawsuit which a party desires to have adjudicated; it is a part of the basic charter promulgated by the Framers of the Constitution at Philadelphia in 1787…. Standing doctrine helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper—and properly limited—role in our constitutional system. By ensuring that a plaintiff has standing to sue, federal courts ‘prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.’”
The Court concluded that there was no judiciary authority to order the Executive Branch to arrest more people under immigration laws, as the states had sought. And Justice Kavanaugh seemed to be drawing a line in the sand that the justices do not have an appetite for dramatically reworking Supreme Court precedent on Article III standing to give states more flexibility to challenge the federal government. “By concluding that Texas and Louisiana lack standing here, we abide by and reinforce the proper role of the Federal Judiciary under Article III. The States’ novel standing argument, if accepted, would entail expansive judicial direction” of executive actions. This is notable, as the Biden administration argued that to conclude that Missouri and Nebraska have standing to sue over the student loan forgiveness plan, the Court would have to abandon key precedent on standing.
Notably, in a footnote, the Court seemed to make arguments that could be easily applied to the student loan forgiveness challenge. “To be sure, States sometimes have standing to sue the United States or an executive agency or officer,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But in our system of dual federal and state sovereignty, federal policies frequently generate indirect effects on state revenues or state spending. And when a State asserts, for example, that a federal law has produced only those kinds of indirect effects, the State’s claim for standing can become more attenuated.” This is exactly the argument that the Biden administration made in contending that Missouri and Nebraska do not have standing to challenge the student loan forgiveness plan, arguing that any harm to the states via MOHELA would be indirect and attenuated.
It’s important to note, however, that the Court also tried to maintain that its ruling in the case is narrow, limited only to the “question of whether the Federal Judiciary may in effect order the Executive Branch to take enforcement actions against violators of federal law.” This could suggest that the Court might rule differently with a distinct case and a distinguishable set of facts.
Nevertheless, United States v. Texas is just the latest Supreme Court decision this term where a state’s standing to sue the federal government was central to the legal dispute, and the Court ruled against the states. In Haaland v. Brackeen, a ruling delivered last week over a dispute regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act, a solid majority on the Court concluded that the states (which, coincidentally, included Texas again) do not have standing. In that decision, the Court reaffirmed its precedent regarding third-party standing, noting that as a general rule, states do not usually have standing to challenge the federal government on behalf of its citizens, outside of some relatively narrow exceptions.
When Is The Supreme Court Ruling On Student Loan Forgiveness Coming?
There are only so many days remaining for the the Supreme Court to issue a decision on the student loan forgiveness cases before its July recess. There are about 10 opinions remaining, including some significant decisions on affirmative action, elections, religious liberty, and LGBTQ rights.
The Court’s next decision release date is Tuesday, June 27 at 10 am Eastern Time. It’s unlikely that all 10 cases will be released then, so there could be some additional dates added to the calendar (likely Thursday, June 29 or Friday, June 30).
So buckle up, some big rulings are coming.
Further Student Loan Forgiveness Reading
6 Key Student Loan Forgiveness And Repayment Dates To Write Down Now
If The Supreme Court Rejects Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan, Here Are Other Options
30 Million Borrowers May Face New Problems As Student Loan Pause Ends
4 Big Student Loan Updates When Payments Resume (And They Resume Soon)
Read the full article here
