The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court to Hear Student Loan Forgiveness Case
The justices refuse to vacate the injunction against President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy, but accept certiorari.
Today the Supreme Court issued an order in Biden v. Nebraska, ensuring that the Supreme Court will hear at least one of the legal challenges to the BIden Administration's student loan forgiveness policy.
The order reads:
Consideration of the application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. The application to vacate injunction is also treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted on the questions presented in the application.
The Clerk is directed to establish a briefing schedule that will allow the case to be argued in the February 2023 argument session.
The Biden Administration had asked the Court to vacate the injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In its application for a stay, it also suggested the Court could treat the application as a petition for certiorari presenting the following to questions:
(1) whether respondents have Article III standing;
(2) whether the plan exceeds the Secretary's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.
If the justices conclude the plaintiffs have standing and reaches the merits, I would think the Biden Administration faces an uphill battle to save this initiative (and that this would be true even without West Virginia v. EPA adding the major questions doctrine to the mix).
[Note: Post updated and revised to add the questions presented from the SG's stay application.]
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This was always just an election ploy (it seems to have worked quite well according to exit polls). They knew it was illegal and would be rejected by the courts. They are barely defending it now.
I agree, and am surprised the SG volunteered that SCOTUS could also treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari. I would not want to be tasked with defending this at oral arguments.
I, too, am surprised. If the Court wants to limit "pen and phone" style executive action, this case has pretty good facts.
Hopefully, the Court will do so....
Free shit is a powerful vote getter.
Given that two courts of appeal have put a stop to this nonsense, I was a bit surprised SCOTUS granted cert. I figured the court would allow the two lower court injunctions to stand and that would be the end of it.
So my question for more informed commentators is why grant cert?
Is it to put a nail in the coffin or address executive overreach or something else?
I think this is a great solution. After all, student life is not easy enough and we must support students. Therefore, I believe that young people need to be told about online services such as Rush My Essay where they can get support and help from experienced professional writers when ordering an essay. I believe that such online platforms are necessary to raise the level of education among the younger generation.