SCOTUS Keeps Block on Biden's Student Debt Forgiveness Program
The ruling marks yet another defeat for Biden's loan forgiveness agenda.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled to keep an injunction halting one of the key provisions of President Joe Biden's changes to the federal student loan program. The court upheld a lower court's block on the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan—an income-driven repayment plan that would have drastically reduced the amount many borrowers would have to pay on their loans before receiving forgiveness.
In 2022, Biden announced plans to enact widespread, one-time student loan forgiveness. While that plan was halted by the Supreme Court last year, several other elements of Biden's policy changes—including the SAVE plan—went untouched. However, several Republican states launched lawsuits against the program, arguing that the plan's incredibly generous terms amounted to an illegal overuse of executive spending power.
Just how generous are these terms? Under SAVE's predecessor, borrowers were required to pay 10 percent of their discretionary earnings (calculated as income above 150 percent of the federal poverty line) for 20 years in order to receive forgiveness. Under SAVE, borrowers only have to pay 5 percent of their discretionary income, now calculated as income above 225 percent of the federal poverty level. Borrowers can also obtain forgiveness after just 10 years if their balance is less than $12,000.
If allowed to continue, the fiscal impact of the SAVE program will be staggering. The program is estimated to cost as much as $536 billion over the next decade—about as much as one-time debt cancelation alone.
In June, two federal judges blocked parts of the program. The following month, a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit placed an injunction completely blocking the program. The legal battle over SAVE reached the Supreme Court earlier this month, and the Court is expected to eventually issue a formal ruling on the program. However, the Court's ruling today means SAVE will remain blocked for the foreseeable future.
The Supreme Court's decision is hardly surprising. Despite making student debt cancellation a core priority of his administration, Biden simply doesn't have the power to introduce sweeping plans that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars without first getting Congressional approval. Yet, this hasn't kept Biden from trying increasingly unconventional attempts to enact widespread loan forgiveness—or from facing legal defeats.
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
What’s the problem? I thought we had lots of money.
Well, maybe you do. And if you do, you need to give it to those who don't. Or else.
The problem with socialism...
...is that is has never been done correctly?
"What’s the problem? I thought we had lots of money."
What do you mean by "we?"
The real Stupid Government Trick is how so many people are arguing this from a financial point of view only, completely neglecting any question of why such momentous spending decisions can be made unilaterally by the President. Emma at least does mention that, but in the last paragraph, and it’s hard to tell if “unconventional” is just poor humor or a real misunderstanding.
Have we completely stopped arguing the moral side of such issues?
Whether or not the "constitutional power" is there, it is immoral to send gunmen to take from those who earned something and give it to those who didn't earn it. If the people of this country cannot understand and abide by this principle, then the American experiment is doomed.
We can talk morals when private citizen loan forgiveness is on par with corporate loan forgiveness. Yea or nay , it should be the same. Until it is, there are no morals involved.
Are there a lot of government backed loans to corporations that are being forgiven at taxpayer expense?
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say no.
Hush. How dare you discourage class envy.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "Solyndra".
The Magical Money Tree has a lot more of those limbs.
Was Solyndra a loan or a subsidy?
How is a forgiven loan different from a subsidy?
You must work for the government.
“How is a forgiven loan different from a subsidy?”
In theory, we could just not forgive the loan and make them pay it back at the agreed terms, whereas a direct handout subsidy is gone the second the money leaves the account.
In terms of outcome (both ending with taxpayers footing the bill), that’s a fair point.
In theory, we could just not subsidize.
In theory, we could just not
stealtax.In theory, you could just not make excuses for government misbehavior.
You asked how they are different. I answered AND conceded the point that if they’re being forgiven you are right and there is no difference. Not sure how you take that as making excuses for government misbehavior.
Well, there is no expectation that a subsidy would need be paid for by the entity receiving it.
There is that expectation with a loan.
So, there was a difference until they starting talking about the forgiveness part, which is of course a 'free' education until those people become a net taxpayer at which point it was not so much 'free' as spread among everyone to pay off.
Either way, forgiving student loan debt does nothing to curb the reason why so many people end up with student loan debt. The university can continue to jack up rates safe in the knowledge that they are going to get theirs, and everyone else gets fucked.
As in most prior centuries, the Church is due its tithing. Questioning that, and what the "contributions" pay for, is heresy.
That expectation of repayment only applies to private loans. Government loans are an entirely different sort of beast, and should have been evidence back when governments were supporting roads, canals, and railroads. Only fools expected those to be repaid, then as now.
I think the new term is subsiloan.
I don't know about a lot, but remember the Paycheck Protection Program? Meet the PPP loan forgiveness program.
https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/covid-19-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program/ppp-loan-forgiveness
Yet nearly three years after the rollout of PPP, the vast majority of loans have been forgiven.
An NPR analysis of data released on Jan. 8 by the Small Business Administration found that 92% of the loans issued have been granted full or partial forgiveness. That includes loans to companies with mega-rich owners.
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1145040599/ppp-loan-forgiveness
The only things I’ll say in defense of PPP are:
1. The forgiveness was baked into the premise so everyone that supported such loans knew at least half weren’t getting paid back.
2. They wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place if assholes around the country hadn’t been kneeling on the economies neck.
I didn't know (or forgot) about the 1st point. I agree on the 2nd.
"We can talk morals when private citizen loan forgiveness is on par with corporate loan forgiveness. Yea or nay , it should be the same. Until it is, there are no morals involved."
Why is it that steaming, slimy piles of lefty shit start with lies to advance their 'arguments'?
Hey, asswipe, tell us about "petroleum subsidies", and be specific. Or STFU
Especially when the money is being handed to a relatively privileged class of people. If a college education doesn't put a lot of people in a position to pay off their loans, maybe we should rethink this whole "everyone should go to college" thing.
>>the money is being handed to a relatively privileged class of people
what do the kids say? feature, not bug.
Dems love the privileged class.
And the self-anointed elitist class.
We definitely should rethink this whole “everyone should go to college” thing.
Given that it's pretty standard practice for politicians to figure out ways to get around the constitution, I don't think that the "unconventional" framing is so bad. The conventional ways are also bad.
Years ago I listened to an interview with a former Constitutional judge. He thought his job was going to be judging legislation against the Constitution. Nope. The people coming through his door wanted him to figure out how to justify laws that were in clear violation of the Constitution. He left in disgust. Others stayed, and that’s the real job of government lawyers and judges who specialize in the Constitution. It’s not to respect it. Quite the opposite.
That pesky Constitution is a problem for "progress".
Yup. It's entire purpose was to limit government. Power seekers do not like that one bit.
Thankfully we have a president today who respects it, eh?
"they can block me but they won't stop me ... unless I'm sequestered on a beach and have no idea what's going on around me."
Baristas everywhere have a sad.
The dumbing down of university education accelerates.
You graduate recently?
Or any time since 1960 in the humanities?
Whether the program goes into effect is entirely beside the point. The entire point here is for a Democrats to buy the votes of young people by promising them a big benefit and then blaming the Supreme Court and the “extremist” Trump appointees for stopping them.
^ This guy gets it.
Yep.
The question no one will ask the Biden admin.
Sir, you previously said that you could not do it and it was up to Congress. The speaker of the house agreed, and SCOTUS has agreed more than once. Why do you think you can keep doing it?
Cuz it's an election year?
Oops...still gotta pay for that Oberlin degree I guess...
Buying that youth vote!
At what point can we start making arrests for contempt?
Don't worry folks.
Biden ignored the first SCOTUS's decision on student loans, and he'll ignore this one too.
Isn't it wonderful to be able to ignore a SCOTUS' decision?
Paying the establishment, even their own, for something is unjust. And the whole idea of legal contracts and financial obligation is white privilege thinking. The Smithsonian told me so.
“Unconstitutional Joe” rebuffed yet again. Hope we don’t end up with “Unconstitutional Kammy”.
Obligatory: At least Joe respects the constitution.
"unconventional" == "dictatorial"
You can blame genocide Joe Biden for removing your ability to chapter 7 student loans. He had genocides to pay for!
For many college degrees, especially social PhDs, the only job one can get is to become a professor who teaches the subject to others. So, in any university setting, you have one dean and a few tenured professors raking it in. Then you have associate professors getting by, and a whole bunch of post-docs barely eking out a living.
Under them you have a large number of grad student dreamers paying big bucks, and under that you have the masses of undergrads paying for BA degrees that aren’t worth spit. All of those victims are being hoodwinked by academic “counselors” (sales people) feeding them false promises of tenured professorships that can’t possibly absorb them all.
Sound familiar? It should, because it’s a classic pyramid scheme, and yes, the losers who pay in and never get paid off have a real complaint. However, the universities are political allies of the Democratic Party, so Biden et al have ignored the scheming and demanded that taxpayers be stuck holding the bag.
New policy for Libertarians and Conservatives: Prosecute universities as pyramid schemes and make them pay back the money they took from defrauded students.
The good news is that Harvard etc have humongous endowments with which to pay off their victims. The even better news is that Harvard et al won’t be able to inculcate as much Marxism in the next generation of student-victims after those endowments get the haircut they so richly deserve.
Impeach him.
If repeatedly trying to steal funds from the public treasury to pay off his supporters' loans isn't cause to impeach, what is?
DICTATOR Biden
And his sheeple of self-projectors.
It's truly amazing how leftards can preach over and over again about Trump (The Gov-De-Regulator) as some dictator when their own guy is literally in trouble with SCOTUS for actually trying to be a DICTATOR.
Man the left can self-project like no other.
Biden simply doesn't have the power to introduce sweeping plans that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars without first getting Congressional approval. Yet, this hasn't kept Biden from trying increasingly unconventional attempts to enact widespread loan forgiveness
, like 'passing the torch' to a Black Woman who promises to fight for this pandering.
The worst part is that every time this subject gets questioned by the court, the loan-holders issue automatic forbearance. You obviously can and should continue to pay it, but the reaction among many is, "I don't have to pay it the next couple months! YAY! Time to go blow it on lottery tickets and fast food!"
But this really ultimately kinda screws them, because every month they fail to pay "because they don't have to" is an extra one tacked on to the end of their IDR. Maybe they're holding out hope for complete loan forgiveness (which would wreck our already floundering economy) - but Court's making it pretty clear, repeatedly, that they ain't having that.