Federal Court Temporarily Halts Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan
It's the first of several court challenges to achieve any level of success. The Supreme Court rejected a separate challenge on Friday.

A federal court on Friday night temporarily blocked President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program, issuing a stay that will give judges time to review legal challenges to the scheme.
A day earlier, federal district Judge Henry Autrey had rejected a challenge brought by a group of Republican attorneys general from six states. Although the case raised "important and significant challenges" to Biden's student debt relief plan, Autrey ultimately ruled that the state governments lacked standing—that is, the right to bring a case based on a demonstration of harm and potential remedy.
That decision was immediately appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which issued the administrative stay on Friday night. In the order, the court told the Biden administration to take no further action on the debt relief plan until full consideration of the case could occur.
In a statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the ruling did not prevent student loan borrowers from applying to have their debts forgiven.
"It is also important to note that the order does not reverse the trial court's dismissal of the case, or suggest that the case has merit. It merely prevents debt from being discharged until the court makes a decision," she said. "We will continue to move full speed ahead in our preparations in compliance with this order."
Establishing standing is the first major hurdle in any legal challenge to the student debt plan—and it has proven to be a difficult one to clear. A lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a libertarian law firm, was similarly dismissed by a federal judge for lacking standing last month. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected without explanation a challenge brought by a Wisconsin-based taxpayer advocacy group.
Part of the problem is that the student debt relief plan seems to be a moving target—the administration has adjusted the rules and eligibility for the program several times since it was announced in August. One of those changes, seemingly in response to the PLF lawsuit, eliminated automatic approval of student debt forgiveness (which means students who might be financially harmed by having their debt removed no longer have standing to sue as they can merely opt out).
But the Biden student loan forgiveness scheme is going to cost taxpayers an estimated $400 billion in order to transfer a staggering amount of wealth to people who in most cases are already quite well off. The whole thing is based on a legally dubious reading of a post-9/11 law that allowed the president to forgive student loans for first responders—and rest on Biden's pandemic emergency powers, despite his own admission that the pandemic is over. Surely, someone must have standing to sue over this.
So when a federal judge says there are "important and significant" issues for the courts to sort through here, that's quite an understatement. Friday night's order from the Eighth Circuit should be only the first step towards a thorough legal review of this expensive, unnecessary, and legally fraught proposal.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm confident Biden will eventually succeed in implementing this wealth giveaway to his base. And no, of course I don't mean his billionaire base. Biden already took care of them by enacting the Koch / Reason unlimited cheap labor immigration agenda.
I'm talking about people like me and my progressive friends. People who have degrees in subjects like gender studies but aren't making as much money as we'd hoped despite this Biden economy being the best ever. Gimme my free money, Joe! 🙂
#LibertariansForBiden
Still waiting for the federal charges to be filed for attempting to loot the US Treasury.
Where are the congressional Republicans? Do they have standing (at least when they're not peeing)? Fuck Joe Biden, MacConnel and MacCarthy and Judgette Barrett.
What Bullshit standing does Biden have? Trump couldn't even get a question about citizenship on the census past the Scotus.
The eternal battle cry of the Republican party is "If you just elect us one more time we will for realsies put a stop to the leviathan and definitely won't simply continue using it for our own cronyism and enrichment. Trust us (again)."
If enough of the right outside candidates win then we might see some change.
Maybe.
Federal judge rules, "Fuck Joe Biden".
Then, walking out of the courtroom, mutters mysteriously...
"16 days."
This is hard one for me. I hope they have standing, I don't understand it well but I hope they do. I hope this isn't just a judge acting politically and granting standing where it doesn't exist.
The ultimate solution to this is, of course, impeachment and removal of the president.
We need a Constitutional amendment declaring that any citizen has standing to challenge a law or executive order on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
I think I'd prefer any elected representative have that power, at least to start with. But definitely there needs to be a mechanism in place.
There seems to be plenty of litigation, including news laws and EOs, and so I don't know why there is a need to change "standing rules". I would suggest that those looking to start lawsuits do a better job of establishing standing based on the current rules.
How an individual is not harmed through devaluation of currency is anyone's guess, but apparently being spent into the poorhouse through reckless Federal spending is completely harmless and is no basis for standing.
Which is to say the courts are basically deciding to ignore harms when determining standing because they purposefully defer to the executive branch even though they are literally a check on executive branch overreach.
Yes, but you forget that as we all read it right here, inflation is profit!
The thing is, for standing you need a harm that is particular to you in some way. If it harms everyone equally, no one has standing.
I'm sure you're right, I'm no expert on that, but it's immensely frustrating given that it seems probable that this is unconstitutional as well as directly harmful to just about everyone in the country.
Willful violation of the constitution should be punishable by death.
It is.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
I think we've all gotten an education on standing in the last couple of years. Whether it was covid lockdowns or election fraud. But standing and jurisdiction are argued in pretty much every federal lawsuit and that has always been the case. Pretty clear our legal system is deficient in allowing the citizenry to defend their basic rights. If there is a legislative fix I'm all ears.
This, again and again and again!
I'm tired of hearing that I "don't have standing" to contest any number of clearly unconstitutional items, chief on that list being dealing with the TSA goons every time I go to get on a plane. But this one is up there too - how they can steal from me to discharge a loan that was freely taken out by a third party is clearly an attack on me.
Yes. Especially tax laws.
How is it I have no standing when I’m being looted by executive order?
I'd say our constitutional right to petition our government for redress of grievances includes filing such a lawsuit, but at the end of the day, the courts are full of tax-dependent shysters.
-jcr
Also a hard one for me. I would benefit from it directly (having paid down $190k of my $200k from medical school). But also knowing it’s terrible policy that doesn’t fix the actual problem of spiking college costs that have no bearing on the quality of education, but rather the ballooning of administrators and whatever the fuck else.
Maybe States should have the power to impeach.
One step at a time. Repeal the 17th first.
Why not? The City Council of Berkeley voted to impeach GW Bush…
Standing as it currently exists is a terrible precedent. If a judge can not identify someone who would have standing to bring a suit against a government action or law, it should not be used to block someone from petition.
Joe Biden is guilty of fraud and treason. Burn him at the stake.
Are you freaking kidding?!? All that CO2!!!
Treason? Can you explain?
Stealing money from the treasury?
Let's also add in judicial persecution of his political opponents, coordinated censorship with tech companies aimed at his political opponents. I mean the list goes on but those should be the top two for anyone that honors liberty, like libertarians!
If pay for play isn't treasonous I don't know what is.
Selling oil from the strategic oil reserver to the ccp
lol.... Learned Ignorance or what?
If you cannot see the amount of UN-Constitutional legislation Biden has pushed (acts of treason) you don't see anything by choice of full-blown ignorance.
Ya know; Biden did take an Oath of Office with his hand on the bible and swore not to break the Supreme Law... Yet here he is 100% pushing endlessly to break that law constantly and compulsively.
I can see no flaw in your argument.
Hold one, what gender does the stake identity as? We really can’t afford any miss stake!
http://instantrimshot.com/
I don't see how anyone has standing to sue when you have to demonstrate a potential harm to yourself in order to have standing and nobody could possibly be hurt by Biden offering free money to people. How can you possibly be hurt by free money? It's like winning the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes! I've already gone out and bought a new house and three new cars in anticipation of Joe forgiving mortgages and auto loans next. Let's go, Brandon!
> I’ve already gone out and bought a new house and three new cars in anticipation of Joe forgiving mortgages and auto loans next.
Shut up, they might hear you!
It's a great time to be a fuckup in America!
As long as Democrats are in charge ("Don't worry about responsibility; we don't either").
How this isn't a blatant usurpation of Congress is anyone's guess. It's the President writing a (not really) $400 billion dollar check.
A check that will almost certainly cost way, way more than $400 billion.
I'd rather pay off my student loans than devalue the money already in my pocket. Only fools don't realize that they'll pay for it, one way or another.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I've been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier.They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill.It's been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply...
Visit following page for more information........>>> Topcitypay
The whole point of communism is.....
[WE] all suffer the debts of careless self-entitled criminals.
It's just a shady way of putting the 'criminals' in charge instead of having natural laws of ensuring Liberty and Justice for all. Strangely those with the [WE] mob of criminal sense don't seem to realize that since they themselves don't PRODUCE human goods their armed robbery living is going to end as soon as their victims house is cleaned out.
I have seen some speculation that ACB's rejection of the case was simply because it needed to work its way through the lower courts first.
Meanwhile Biden fritters the farm away. ACB seems like all judges just there to gin up work for lawyers.
It would seem a bit strange to fight illegal procedures with more illegal procedures.
“But the Biden student loan forgiveness scheme is going to cost taxpayers an estimated $400 billion in order to transfer a staggering amount of wealth to people who in most cases are already quite well off.”
When did Congress appropriate funding from all taxpayers to pay off the banks on behalf of the people who signed a loan contract?
https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources
When did Congress appropriate funding from all taxpayers to pay off the banks on behalf of the people who signed a loan contract?
Banks didn’t lend this money. The Department of Education did. Banks have (largely) been out of the student loan business since it was nationalized under Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 during the Obama Administration, although I can't find anywhere in Article I Section 8, where Congress has the power to get the Federal Government in the Student Loan, or Education busines for that matter.
I know, I know....Commerce Clause...it's always the Commerce Clause.
Normalizing trade between states mean nationalization of the loan industry because reasons.
"Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009"
Yet again proving the rule that the name of the Act is the opposite of what it does.
Okay straight up legal question for those of you with the background: If the states don't have standing in this case, then who does? Who can legally demonstrate the harm the court requires?
No one. That's kind of the point. Remember when Joe and Nancy told us this scheme would be illegal? They were right. But they realized there was no way to stop them so they did it anyway. But the real threat to democracy is Mega MAGA trickle down.
About 5 minutes after the recent EV credits were put through, EV makers increased their costs around the amount of the EV credit, sometimes more, basically making the "tax credit" and direct govt gift to EV makers.
The same will happen with colleges and college tuition. Things dont change until they are held accountable for skyrocketing their costs while taking guaranteed govt funded loans and promising careers in majors that are useless. Its ponzi-adjacent territory. You dont fix the problem by essentially funneling more money to the scammers, in fact, you all but assure the problem will worsen.
… increased their costs around the amount of the EV credit,..
You mean price.
Not necessarily. Colleges literally don’t just increase prices in response to subsidies, they actually increase costs. That is, they use the subsidies for increasing salaries, hiring more administrators, and building fancy buildings.
Price, it's not what you say it is, it's what the market will bear. Simple economics.
Also this has to be illegal.
Can the executive decide unilaterally that he wants to give money to:
Old people who took on bad reverse mortgages?
People who took on more credit card debt than they should?
People who have a gambling problem and took out huge cash advances to throw it on black?
When it comes down to it these people signed a contract. The president should not have the power to take money from my wallet to relieve them of their personal responsibility. Said people also currently are statistically more likely to out-earn those that are funding their irresponsible decisions. Shit, even if it overwhelmingly passed in congress I would take issue with it, but this is even worse.
He just wants to buy their votes. It’s the on,y thing that matters to democrats.
Votes from "studies" grads, who would vote for Democrats anyway.
Yeah, but this motivates the couch surfers and basement dwellers to actually open one of their mail-in ballots and check some blue boxes.
He’s trying to buy the shit heads’ parent’s votes too.
Plus it’s yet another scheme to throw more money into circulation.
"He just wants to buy their votes "
Exactly why this was being pushed through now, just a few weeks before the election, so that the Dems can say "see what we can do for you?"
In this case, simply putting the thing on hold until after the election is a significant move on the chessboard of American politics.
They can possibly do it for mortgages, since the federal government has taken those over. They can’t do it for debt owed to private companies.
That’s because government debt forgiveness is technically not new spending and may not require congressional approval. Actually writing checks is clearly spending
Hmm, what about people who had unprotected sex?
Do they get $10k, too?
Every policy there must be a party who does not benefit Politics-Economy,
Come on Man!!. They are only using the profits they made off the loans to repay this. It all adds up. The US is a rich country and can afford this.
The govenrment earned $37 billion in 2013. Pay it back to us.
https://www.tuition.io/should-the-government-profit-from-student-loans/
Of course this is all funny money and inflationary accounting but if you are a progressive then this all adds up nicely.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2022/07/31/student-loans-will-cost-government-200-billion-loss-shocking-report-says/?sh=41cf9d0e4910
This was BEFORE Joe's diktat.
"The U.S. Department of Education substantially underestimated the cost of the federal student loan program and will likely lose $197 billion on student loans issued over the past 25 years. According to the Government Accountability Office, the Education Department initially projected student loans from 1997 to 2021 to generate $114 billion. However, their projections were wrong by $311 billion.
Reason’s staff’s social science graduates hardest hit.
Aren't they all English majors?
Based on the editing done here, that doesn't seem likely.
Excuse my simple-minded ignorance, but how does every American, at least those of us that pay taxes, NOT have standing? If the Treasury gives away money that the feds need for other "vital" programs, and then demands more tax dollars from our pockets, does that not harm us?
Or are we through another looking glass, where paying more taxes for any reason, and especially for politically-motivated redistribution (and most especially during an election season), is promoted as a benefit to tax payers?
Exactly...
"Gov-GUN armed theft is charity", is every democrats flag-ship.
Criminals... Once easily defined by laws of civil society now polluted by Criminal justification and indoctrination of, "It's every citizens JOB to be a SLAVE of the State."
Still the party of slavery.
SCOTUS decided long ago (Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)) any injury to a person based on his status as a taxpayer is too remote and general to qualify the person for standing in federal court. It’s purely a policy decision by SCOTUS; they didn’t want the courts to be inundated with lawsuits by taxpayers or their advocates for claims related to the federal government’s improper spending and tax policies.
It’s a bit of leap in logic, though, to say that a taxpayer doesn’t have standing when he can show he will pay more taxes due to illegal rule-making by the President, but here we are.
Income taxes were a LOT lower at the time.
But we are approaching the distribution of tax burden of the 1920s.
"It’s a bit of leap in logic"
Good thing we have the finest legal minds at work. Do you think the best law schools teach cognitive dissonance skills?
When this action was first proposed by Biden, our local MSM news at least voiced the arguments against - i.e., cost, unfairness, etc. Now, the storyline is those dastardly Republicans are suing to stop this program. Echos of pushing grandma in her wheelchair over the cliff?
I'll push gramma off the cliff if she's trying to fucking mug me.
And that is the fundamental value to Joe and Democrats during an election year.
It should be legal to treat anyone that takes this money as a mugger on the street. Ie I get to kill them in self defence
I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction
On the given website.........>>> Topcitypay
Yeah--and Biden got 81 million legit votes, right?
Good!
Diesel inventories down to less than a month, their lowest level this century, right as we head into winter when demand surges (and when we usually have the highest annual inventories). Munitions levels in the military so low that it is forecasted to take a decade to replenish them, even as we continue to send billions of dollars of these munitions to a country that has little to no strategic value to us and risk expanding that war. Already in a recession while the pundits pretend otherwise (this is fairly typical, the pundits are always the last to realize we're in a recession) and the forecast is for it to get even worse. Treasury bond sales extremely soft, verging on the same situation that just brought down the British government (UK debt to GDP is 98% ours is around 138%). Extremely soft consumer goods sales. Urea shortages which impact food and transportation (almost all modern diesels require DEF to operate and urea is the major active ingredient in DEF). SRP at its lowest level since the 1980s, with no viable plan to replenish it (and Democrats blocked Trump from replenishing it when prices were far lower than today). Xi is growing even more ambitious and tyrannical since getting his third term. Europe on the verge of a massive recession. Latin America depends on US diesel refining which is, as indicated above, extremely tight. Record illegal crossings across the southern border. $400 billion dollar giveaway passed in non-legislative manner contrary to the spirit of the constitution. Trillions of dollars worth of corporate welfare. Depressed and decreasing real wages. Inflation causing acceleration of social security insolvency and no plans to address this (Republican plans will be demagogued to the point nothing will get done). Obvious politicalization of the DoJ. Tech companies conspiring with the administration to censor opponents. Crumbling infrastructure, especially our electrical grid, at the same time that the administration is pushing policies that will increase demand and decrease reliability and an infrastructure bill that does almost nothing to address this, in fact likely makes it even worse. And yet 40% of Americans still support the president and 45% support giving the party that created this mess control of Congress. Am I missing something?
Oh, I forgot pushing questionable vaccines on young, healthy Americans, while the rest of the world is quickly passing rules restricting access to these vaccines for those under 40 because of the high risk to benefits ratio (which our government continues to underplay). Also, approving a vaccine based on mouse data alone, contrary to FDA standards. Oh, and don't forget the major damage done to our kids with lockdowns etc, championed by the Democrats and their media lapdogs. Increasing violent crime. Congress can't pass a budget for years on end, their primary job. The wealthiest counties no longer major industrial or financial areas but those surrounding the national capital (gee, I wonder why debt to GDP is 138%). Pretty obvious many teachers, school boards and the teachers unions, in their incestuous relationship, are pushing political views as 'education', while spending more per student than any other country, while our education achievement and standing continues to fall behind the rest of the industrialized world. University costs continue to soar, while needed tech, skilled trades and vocational jobs continued to go unfilled due to lack of trained workers, at the same time that many of the current employees in these fields are retiring in greater numbers. Yes, many of these things are decades in the making, but many of us have been warning about this for decades. In response we got called teanaggers, deplorables, clingers, etc. I don't know if the 1970s are the best analogy, maybe the late 1920s, or late 1880s are a better analogy. And don't forget the reason we're in this situation is because of policies created in the 1890s and 1930s to address those financial catastrophes.
But on the bright side...?
Maybe more Americans might catch on (dare I say awaken) and push back harder on progressive idiocy?
Unfortunately, they'll probably ask for more. Big Daddy government and all polls well.
IANAL, but the reason why standing exists as a doctrine must surely be because it’s the court’s job to resolve disputes. In any dispute, there must be an injured party, and the injury has to be an objective one so that it can be resolved. No injury, no resolution, thus no restitution, thus no “setting things to rights”.
A generalized injury suffered by everyone due to government policy won’t do. What would the “restitution” even be in that case? You can’t restore an individual taxpayer, you’d have to restore the entire populace. And that’s not the job of the courts. That’s the job of the very government whose policies are causing the claimed harms.
It’s a chicken and egg situation. The solution to this situation is in the voting booth, not the courtroom. To each branch it’s role, and to each it’s own powers and it’s own remedies when those powers are abused.
The doctrine of Judicial review has a part to play here as well. That doctrine is needed for the sake of consistency and orderliness, not for the sake of resolving disputes. When the court declares a law as being unconstitutional, it isn't restoring individuals who have been harmed, it is declaring that the law cannot be adjudicated as written.
When it comes to matters of the constitution, general harm should be standing and resolution is overturning unconstitutional laws and rules. Not that fucking hard.
Also, the judiciary role has long been to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional. So, they would be doing their role by overturning unconstitutional law. Instead by using chickenshit standing rulings, they abdicated their roles. Again, not that fucking hard.
Remember our constitution isn't written to protect government but to protect it's citizens from the government. Again, it is not that fucking hard.
Part of the problem is that the student debt relief plan seems to be a moving target—the administration has adjusted the rules and eligibility for the program several times since it was announced in August.
Remember "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill."? Good times.
The voluntary contract between parties is a key feature of a free market democratic system. If one side can abrogate a contract at will, with no penalties, then the contract means nothing. Student loans are contracts, no one, not even the President of the United States can sign a decree changing that contract.
(1) We don’t live in a free market system.
(2) The federal government is not a private actor age hence not a participant in a free market.
(3) Contracts can be legitimately “abrogated” for a variety of reasons, even unilaterally.
(4) Student loan debt contacts are being cancelled by mutual agreement: both the borrower and the lender agree to the cancellation.
1) Not *all* of [WE] the borrows agree to be robbed. Heck not *all* [WE] the borrowers even agreed to lend our wealth.
2) [WE] majority-gang rules (i.e. "democracy") using Gov-GUNS to win minority SLAVES is what happened. Oh whoops; nope - this one didn't even go through "democracy" it was pushed on by a dictator.
The Problem; Just because more 'lenders' wanted to STEAL than there were [WE] borrows who don't want to get robbed doesn't mean **Individual Justice** is served. What it really means is [WE] borrows were told to hand over our wealth at the end of a [WE] gang packing Gov-GUNS.
Oliver Cromwell proved, the hard way, that he had standing to challenge King Charles I's claim that he had the divine right to spend whatever amount he wanted on whatever he fancied. Looks like something similar will be required here.
It's going to cost a lot more than $400b
Keep in mind that the student loan takeover by the federal government was justified by claiming that it would bring in revenue for the federal government that was going to offset spending. Were not just losing nearly a trillion dollars in debt, but also all the interest payments.