Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Gets Blocked Again
On Monday, a federal appeals court placed an injunction on Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, marking the second major setback for the proposal in recent days.

President Joe Biden's federal student loan forgiveness plan was thwarted by a federal appeals court on Monday with the court placing an injunction on the program pending further appeals. This is the latest setback for Biden's loan forgiveness agenda, which was blocked by a federal judge just three days earlier on November 11.
In August, Biden announced a student loan forgiveness plan which would forgive up to $20,000 in student loans for individual borrowers making less than $125,000 annually and married couples making less than $250,000 annually. At the time, Biden also announced sweeping changes to already existing Income-Driven Repayment plans (IDRs), dramatically reducing the amount that individuals would be required to pay back before having their remaining loan balances discharged. Not including the cost of IDRs and other changes, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Biden's plan would cost $400 billion.
But the plan continues to face challenges. Last week, a federal judge ruled the program unconstitutional, finding that a 2003 federal law that Biden used to justify the loan forgiveness does not "provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program." The Department of Justice filed an appeal of the decision on Friday, according to White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
Adding to the Biden administration's issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit placed an injunction on the plan on Monday—agreeing with a request from a group of six Republican-controlled states. The injunction will stay in place and bar the administration from forgiving any student loan debt until an additional ruling from the 8th Circuit or the Supreme Court is brought forth.
In its ruling, the 8th Circuit's three-judge panel found that Missouri, one of the states bringing the suit, has appropriate standing in the case because, it argues, Biden's student loan forgiveness plan would lead to decreased revenue for the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a partially state-controlled federal student loan servicer, and, therefore, hurt the state as a whole.
"MOHELA may well be an arm of the State of Missouri under the reasoning of our precedent," wrote the 8th Circuit in its opinion released on Monday. "Due to MOHELA's financial obligations to the State treasury, the challenged student loan debt cancellation presents a threatened financial harm to the State of Missouri."
For this reason, the court argued that an injunction was necessary to prevent harm while legal action against the Biden administration's plan is ongoing, writing that "the equities strongly favor an injunction considering the irreversible impact the Secretary's debt forgiveness action would have as compared to the lack of harm an injunction would presently impose."
While it is still unclear what the ultimate fate of Biden's student debt relief proposal will be, the mounting legal challenges to the program certainty spell trouble for its supporters—and relief for its detractors.
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
"Meh."
-Biden's handlers
If it was trump, it would be “ failure “, but for SleepyJoe, it’s a “setback “.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (mjd-05) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
What do they care? Election’s past. Votes are already bought.
Exactly. If they were smart, they'd start talking about how they just cut the budget $100M or whatever the program was going to cost.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Biden and Pelosi are both crooks and the US will be better when we get rid of both of them.
Fuck Joe Biden
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link............>>> onlinecareer1
should be a "get your free boat" deal for anyone who tries to sign up for this but I think the government is instead taking the enrollment list seriously
Maybe one of these decades we can finally move past rule by executive orders, and get back to the system where the legislature rather than the executive legislates.
With this congress ? I highly doubt it.
At least this unlawful, unconstitutional decree by Joe Biden put us in no danger of imminent dictatorship. The court just decided the Democrat administration may have made an “oopsie” that is not an ominous sign of the overthrow of the Republic and our Democracy.
I can't think of any executive order that put us in imminent danger of dictatorship, so why not be more specific? Or was this just some lame jab at Trump?
He can't and it was.
Wrong, Rat !!
Every unlawful, unconstitutional move puts us in danger of immininent dictatorship. THe difference is ONLY in your getting away with it.
If you check the past 150 years only a minuscule sample of radical takeovers were out in the open.
We get to do thus exact same issue all over again in 2 years now
Sure it's not working out now, but if you vote for them in 2024, they will definitely get it done. Trust them.
Sic semper tyrannis
There is no standing here---the claims of the state boil down to the argument that, somehow, the state has some right to insert itself into the federal govt-borrower relationship. That sort of manufactured standing (jus tertii) deserves a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
I don't think this remotely debatable. PLus there's the justiciability issue--let's say a statute said that a permit cost was set at $50, but the agency said, "Screw it, we're only charging $25." Can a court fashion an order telling the government that it must charge $50? Courts really cannot make the government do that in any realistic way. So there's a justiciability issue.
So the President can ignore the law and the Constitution as long as a judiciary says that no one has standing to object?
I do not think the law is supposed to work that way.
Um yes. Courts sit to resolve cases and controversies, and that language has been interpreted to mean that a given litigant has to have some sort of right to complain about the alleged harm. Here, you have some state agency that wants to insert itself into a relationship in which it has no real business. It's like a ballpark vendor suing MLB because an ump blew a call that resulted in the home team's season ending. Yes, that decision harmed the vendor, but the umpiring is not something that the vendor has any right to complain about (in a legal sense). This really isn't difficult, and it is shocking that the lawyers in here cannot see this.
I am appalled by Biden's action, and, in my opinion, this delegitimizes the election. It's the largest illegal campaign contribution in history. Biden should go to prison for this. But the courts have no business here.
"Biden should go to prison for this. But the courts have no business here."
Who, besides the courts, should be sending anyone to prison, exactly?
Courts have no business dealing with the civil suits.
So, what you are saying is no checks and balances? If there is no standing for anyone to challenge an executive order in court, than the system fails.
What I am saying is that the argument is a sham--the Missouri agency, to be successful, has to be able to assert that it has some right to dictate the relationship between the individual borrowers and the government. It has no right to do so. Thus, it's "I am harmed because of the government's illegal act" does not confer standing. It's a sham argument, which should be treated as such.
And maybe the system fails--all I can say is that no one seems to be able to refute what I am saying.
You are both wrong. Let's get back to specifics.
This is an impairment of the contract. The state that can now --- or not now-- assess the tax on the debt forgiven, has been defaulted in that someone else altered the fullness of terms for that loan. Why privilege the government that forgives (the Federal) over the government that taxes (the State)?
Every other forgiveness will result in a tax. What is special about a government loan that everybody affected is supposed to act like the loan never really existed.
I see someone has some student loans outstanding.
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link............>>> onlinecareer1
Doesn't matter, they got the short-term goal they wanted. This is a repeating strategy with this administration.
"student forgiveness"????? LOL....
Isn't that just a sugar-coated term for robbery forgiveness???
Today's USA President; the BIGGEST armed (Gov-GUN packing) criminal to ever set foot on American soil while pitching his massive armed-robbery as just pickings from the magical money tree.
Students received a service & money under contract that those receiving's would be *EARNED*(i.e. returned) down the road. Counterfeiting more funny-money or stealing isn't JUSTICE it's actions of self-entitled criminals who don't think about anyone else but themselves and their own ego-boosted entitlement.
I've watched countless students go to Commie-School for and only for the "Free" money. They cashed out their Commie-Grants and spent far, far, far beyond their means expecting Gov-GUN packing criminal mentality to bail them out down the road.
GUNS do not make resources... Their only value to humanity is to ensure *evil* doesn't take away one's own Individual Liberty and to ensure Justice (fair play). Selfish Democrats/RINOS are the *evil* robbing/dictating/enslaving people that government is suppose to protect the people against.
What to do when the government starts working for criminal-gangs instead of to ensure Liberty and Justice?
All I have to say is "good".
The main thing is that Biden will nominate judges who will find a right to student loan forgiveness in some penumbra of the U.S. Constitution.
Interesting article!