The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court Rules Against Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan
The Court ruled the plan is illegal, and that at least one plaintiff (the state of Missouri) has standing.
Today, in Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled that President Biden's $430 billion loan forgiveness plan is illegal because not authorized by Congress under the 2003 HEROES Act. It also ruled that, at least one of the plaintiffs, the state of Missouri, has standing to sue. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, in a 6-3 split along ideological lines. He concludes that the plan is unauthorized under the text of the HEROES Act and also runs afoul of the "major questions" doctrine.
In my view, this decision is correct on both standing and the merits. It is an important step towards curbing executive abuse of emergency powers and executive raids on the Treasury for purposes not authorized by Congress.
In the companion case, Department of Education v. Brown, the Court unanimously (and correctly, I think) ruled that the plaintiffs lack standing.
I will have much more to say about this case later in the day, including in a forthcoming article for CNN.
I previously outlined my views on the merits here, and on standing here, here, and here.
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
Can't wait to read my "Betters" Opinions,
Wow, AA and Student Loan decisions on back to back days, hopefully the Riots won't be too destructive
Dark Brandon just pecker slapped the RepooplicKKKunt justices upside their heads with his new student loan repayment program…I think ACB liked it a little. 😉
Will Democrats return to the idea of government by the people and the representatives of the people? Or just keep pushing illegal workarounds and power grabs with built in schemes to try to evade court scrutiny?
Ben_ : "Will Democrats return .... (whining)"
For God's sake, please grow up. Both parties have pushed the boundaries of executive power, both because that's what executive power naturally does and in response to legislative paralysis.
Gfy with your dishonest both sides nonsense.
We saw with the debt limit issue, Democrats scheming and pushing any and every idea except working together in good faith with the people’s representatives.
Remember how Congress said, "No, we're not paying for your moronic border wall that you promised Mexico was going to pay for," and then Trump went ahead and decided to build it anyway?
And Democrats didn’t like that because Trump was acting like Democrats. It’s really bad behavior.
I remember that action was clearly in accordance with the (poorly written) law at the time, unlike this time.
Democrats didn’t like that because Trump was acting like Democrats
When they do it, it's because of how flawed their character is.
When we do it, it's an aberration brought on by how bad their character is.
Did anyone ever claim Trump had a flawless character? Or even a good character? I certainly did not.
You're still sucking out loud, Ben.
You're an apologist for Trump, while raging at just...'Democrats.'
No one, not even Brett, double standards like you. You've got a cycle where your anger authors your double standard, which makes you more angry.
It's a single standard: government by the people is the right choice and other choices are bad.
But you did like it then, Ben. That’s his point.
I liked seeing Democrats treated like they treat others.
Democrats had an opportunity to learn from that, but deranged Trump hatred crowded out all other thoughts in their heads, so they didn't learn. I don't know if they can ever learn anything again -- maybe the intensity of their Trump hatred rewired them permanently.
And now they enjoy seeing you and yours being treated the way you want to treat them. See how it works?
Sauce for the goose.
So you agree they can't learn.
The point of this mini-thread is that you can’t learn. You’re just like the people you hate but refuse to recognize it.
I already learned. I'm the one calling for a return to pre-Obama norms of government by the people.
What are you calling for? Dumb whataboutism as a substitute for good faith?
Should Democrats embrace government that seeks popular input and consensus, or not? Please answer. Or do you only care about your pointless rejoinders?
The big difference is that Trump declared the emergency for the sole purpose of undertaking a major policy action that congress had clearly rejected.
Biden's policy, good or bad, was in response to the economic fallout from an actual declared emergency.
And isn't it funny how forgiving a significant chunk of student loans is a "major question" that Congress should have super-explicitly addressed. But building a wall across the entirety of the US's southern border wasn't?
Covid isn't an emergency. It was a couple year ago.
The "big difference" is that the wall was already an approved, voted on project that only lacked funding. And the expenditure is tiny in comparison to the loan giveaway. And Trump tried to work with Congress first instead of Democrats' embrace of scheming as a first resort. And a wall is for all Americans, not a giveaway to a few at the expense of the rest.
As I said, economic fallout from the emergency.
As for the wall, I never heard about congress approving a wall across the border, funded or not.
As for impact, the social, political, environmental, land ownership, and diplomatic impact of a wall across the southern border would be massive.
Don't believe me? Trump's campaign was based on "Build the wall". How is the central plank of a successful Presidential campaign not a "major question"?
The student loan crisis was caused by COVID?
"I never heard about congress approving a wall across the border, funded or not."
You should go look it up. And think about it. Were the workers building it arrested?
You should go look it up.
It's your assertion, you look it up.
And think about it. Were the workers building it arrested?
Think about it.
Were the civil servants carrying out the the student loan forgiveness program arrested?
I don’t need to look it up. I remember when the law was passed.
You should look up whether civil servants carried out the student loan forgiveness plan. In fact, they did not.
Awesome Ben has convinced himself.
I guess no need for him to provide the evidence required to make the argument to other people now!
Funny, all the Lame Stream Media keeps saying he Didn't "build the wall"
Frank "Wall? how about a minefield?"
And Trump claimed the wall was authorized by the Defense Appropriations act, and the Supreme Court allowed Trump to keep building the wall.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/politics/supreme-court-border-wall/index.html
Then the Biden Administration had the lawsuit dismissed as moot so we never found out whether Trump broke the law or not in building the wall.
“Both parties have pushed the boundaries of executive privilege”
Bothsidesism! BOTHSIDESISM!!!! You bothsidesing communist MAGA bastard!
You’re right, of course, just giving you a taste of what I get whenever I say that.
Don't be simple.
Sometimes both sides are alike.
You, however, are committed to both sides being alike *all the time*. It's simplistic, but you are very into that narrative. And so you strain to equate things that are not the same.
This is why you get pushback, and DMN's more case-by-case analysis does not.
See? I can’t see who this is but it’s almost certainly someone calling me a bothsidsing MAGA bastard.
What Democrats are going to do is run on a platform of we're trying to help the little guy and the Republicans won't let us. Which does not strike me as being a winner for Republicans.
I think the Supreme Court just got Biden re-elected.
With this? This is the easiest decision the SC has ever had to make.
People with Liberal Arts PhDs from Oberlin are not “the little people”.
No, but there are a lot of "little guys" with student loan debt from community colleges and state universities. Look for them to be making appearances in Biden re-election ads.
To whatever extent they got screwed, they didn’t get screwed by Republicans. They got screwed by administrators running bloated colleges and universities all over the country. You know, Biden supporters.
If Biden runs commercials on this he might not like what he gets back in response. A bunch of spoiled 20 somethings with nose rings and bright blue hair wearing provocative shirts at a protest demanding money is not gonna help him with actual “little people”.
Also the people who pay for online colleges that specifically market themselves to the working class.
"No, but there are a lot of “little guys” with student loan debt from community colleges and state universities."
There are lots of little guys with no debt, debt other than student loans, etc. They don't want to pay off other people's debts.
They actually mostly do. Student loan forgiveness is very popular, which is why it was announced right before the midterm elections. It, along with the Dobbs effect, is a big reason your big "Red Wave" petered out.
“Very popular”
Uh, no
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/shows/meetthepress/blog/rcna92006
The best evidence you have to contradict my claim . . . shows that it is supported by 47%, and opposed by 41%. So merely solidly popular, rather than "very" popular. Is that your point?
Not sure "Not supported by 53%" is solidly popular, but you do you.
And, rest assured, the biggest beneficiaries (very rich folks) will appear in Republican ads with high school grads being demanded to give money to them.
Because that is what Biden wanted.
“Little guy”?
About 60% of college debt belongs to people with an income of more than $100,000, and 80% belongs to those making more than $70,000. Median household income in the US is about $65K.
It isn’t the “little guy” that owes college debt.
"About 60% of college debt belongs to people with an income of more than $100,000, and 80% belongs to those making more than $70,000. Median household income in the US is about $65K"
That's true but missing details it needs to matter. After all, 1 person with $110,000 of income and $60,000 of debt plus 4 people with $40,000 income and $10,000 of debt each is 60% of the debt belonging to people with >$100k income - and 80% of the population being little guys who benefit from waiving $10,000 of debt. So, more info is needed.
Umm...while your math is "fun" the actual statistics are easily available online, and reality is quite different from your math.
So he could have included that data in the first place instead of making me think he was trying to mislead me by leaving it out?
You can manufacture circumstances for any hypothetical you want, especially when your imaginary case involves 5 people instead of the 50 million that actually exist, but there is good data available to anyone that wants to look about the breakdown of college debt.
Pretending I was "trying to mislead you" by not including irrelevant details that don't change anything is a dishonest and a non-argument.
Incidentally, did you know that the percentage of debt that people would have had revoked until this plan is the about same for all four lower quintiles? The median debt among the poorest being almost $11,000, and the median debt amongst those making more than $100,000 is... a bit over $12,000.
Did you know that more than 50% of the funding would go to people that were on track to pay their debt off in less than 10 years anyway?
But if you really wanted to support paying down the debt of doctors and lawyers already making six digits, you should say so, rather than trying to pretend that this plan was going to help the "poor guy".
When Democrats say "help the little guy" they mean they’re illegally giving money to the richest and least responsible at the expense of grocers and electricians and truck drivers and everyone else in society who follows the rules.
I mean, they've been running on that policy for decades by now. It's not like it's unique to this decision.
Hey, at least Biden was elected.
Will Republicans return to the idea of judicial restraint? Or just keep overriding the will of the people with power grabs by activist judges?
Lol no he wasn't
Or just keep pushing illegal workarounds and power grabs with built in schemes to try to evade court scrutiny?
Yeah, it's not like the GOP has literally done that, passing laws that clearly violate standing SCOTUS precedent regarding abortion and free speech, but are designed to avoid challenge by working as "bounties" to make it difficult for plaintiffs to gain standing to challenge the law.
And no, that's not a "both sides" thing since only the GOP is doing it.
Au contraire. California also passed such a law wrt guns.
Indeed.
California passed the law to point out how outrageous the tactic was, then when a judge struck down the law the governor thanked him.
Rev Arthur Copeland is by far my favorite casualty in the culture war. I hope he will share with us what it feels like to be utterly dominated by the will of his betters in the West's conservative Christian supermajority.
An utterly lawless decision by the corrupt Court. The latest in the line of lawless decisions under the recently-manufactured and policy-driven "major questions doctrine."
Ten thousand dollars is nothing to these crooks. Barely a pittance in the context of a billionaire-funded FedSoc junket. But for those who came of age after the 08 crash, it could've been a real lifeline. For those people, it was the first time in their life that the government did something good for regular people. Now the boot goes back on their necks.
PPP loan forgiveness - the government trough for the wealthy and small business tyrants - is left untouched, of course.
Recently, the Supreme Court posted its lowest favorability rating in its history, with only 29% approval. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3874 . Look for that number to drop even further.
"Recently, the Supreme Court posted its lowest favorability rating in its history, with only 29% approval."
You're misidentifying left-liberal disapproval as a bad thing. As Rick Sanchez said, "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer!"
Hmm, trying to remember the last time the peoples got to vote for Surpreme Court Judges... Of course you sort of vote for them indirectly, by voting for a POTUS, who you also vote for indirectly. Can you imagine a Court with 3 Hilary Rodman picks, lets see, Merrick the Elephant Man Garfield, maybe even Barry Hussein or Rahm Manuel,
Frank
You think 70% of the country is "left-liberal"?
And I never suggested it was a bad thing. As someone who'd love to see the court blown up (metaphorically, of course!), I think it's great.
You don't think court favourability matters?
What do you think your government is other than your country generally agreeing upon the system they're going to be governed by? That's the entire point of democracy.
What do you think happens when people decide to start checking out of the system?
The SCOTUS doesn't have an army. If the SCOTUS is increasingly unpopular at some point the POTUS starts saying "who cares", gets away with it, and bad things start happening.
Want some cheese with that whine?
"boot goes back on their necks."
The Man, always keeping middle class liberal arts graduates down!
Oh, look who just decided judicial review was actually good after all! At least when it can be used as a tool to harm the people he finds undesirable.
As you acknowledge down thread, this is a statutory interpretation case.
So your "judicial review" comment is a non sequitur. Constitutional judicial review is indeed bad, but is not involved here.
How in the world does the constitution justify the President changing a law with no check from any other branch. The lawlessness in this case came from the White House.
By your philosophy, we should have simply not bothered with the revolution and just stuck with George.
I wonder how the hell the dissenters justified dissent? Standing? No way you can justify supporting the rule change on the legal merits.
Literally no one, not even Thomas or Gorsuch, argued that the program violated the constitution. This was a statutory interpretation case.
More than a statutory issue, it held that the executive branch cant make law - ie executive actions that are not authorized by statute or authorized by the constitution are not constitutional
Wrong. Point to that holding.
Biden v. Nebraska?
Line up, retards!
Nothing about the constitution. This was not a case about the constitution.
Randal - you may have misinterpreted what I stated.
A) the Heroes act did not provide for wholesale forgiveness of student loans, That part is clearly statutory. For the most part, that was not in dispute except by those that take the position that the executive branch can anything unless expressly barred by congress.
B) the biden administration/executive branch wanted to forgive the loans when there was no statutory authority to do such.
c) the constitutional issue , similar to the major questions doctrine, is that the executive branch can not write the law.
No. No one took the position that the executive branch can do anything not expressly barred by Congress. Literally nobody in the world. Where did you even get that from?
The whole disagreement was about whether the HEROES Act provided for wholesale forgiveness of student loans. That is exactly what was in dispute.
"This was not a case about the constitution."
Joe Biden: “I think the court misinterpreted the Constitution.” [6/30/23 news conference]
"An utterly lawless decision by the corrupt Court."
Full of so-called justices. You guys (including Biden, with his "not a normal court" stuff) are sounding more like Trump every day.
Accusing someone of being "Trump-like" would be somewhat more effective as an insult if you didn't spend your days defending everything he did.
Ok, so I'm just like Trump. So what? You're going to prostrate yourself before me?
Biden did exactly what Trump did a few years ago with the wall money. How did you like it then?
"PPP loan forgiveness – the government trough for the wealthy and small business tyrants – is left untouched, of course."
PPP loan forgiveness was passed by Congress. If you want student loan forgiveness, talk to your Congressman.
And tell them to do what? They already expressly authorized the department to waive or modify any student loan, without reservation. Pass something saying "we really mean it this time"?
re: "they already expressly authorized..."
No, they didn't. We know that because when bills were proposed that actually did exactly what Biden tried, they failed in the legislature.
Different legislature.
How about pass something saying "We forgive all college loan debt, and allocate the funds for forgiving that debt here".
I don’t trust courts to not say some sort of college debt still isn’t included, because the Major Questions Doctrine seems to function as that when Congress says “all” that doesn’t actually mean “all”.
Do you consider the steel seizure cases decision to be an utterly lawless decision?
There was a serious question about standing. But once the merits are reached, the statutory interpretation seems pretty straightforward. There wasn’t really a need to discuss the “major questions doctrine.” The ordinary meaning of the word “modify” works perfectly well.
"There was a serious question about standing."
No there was not. There were a bunch of states that suffered no cognizable injury. There was MOHELA, a separate entity that wanted no part of this lawsuit. And there was a Court that ignored all existing standing jurisprudence so it could achieve a policy outcome it liked.
Do you think the citation of Arkansas v. Texas on tbe question of a state stepping in for a state corporation was incorrect? What distinguishes the two cases?
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/346/368.html
What distinguishes the two is that the University of Arkansas is an arm of the state of Arkansas. Obviously. And it wanted to sue for losses it suffered.
This case is closer to Arkansas trying to overturn a regulation that cost Walmart money, even though Walmart wanted no part of the case.
"arm of the state"
As is MOHELA.
Lol. Teefah, your contention is untenable. Nobody had standing because nobody was affected. Where was the money fir this going to come from? Or if you prefer, who was the debt going to accrue to?
Someone was taking a helluva hit, but according to you nobody is in a position to complain.
The taxpayers would take a hit, sure. But taxpayers don't have standing to challenge government spending.
No but the organization that serviced the loans was going to lose money, and that harm was sufficient for standing.
Yeah, I agree that MOHELA would have a sufficient injury to confer standing. But it didn't want to sue. And there was no legal basis for Missouri to step into its shoes.
Texas v. Arkansas? You know, the one ReaderY pointed out ~40 minutes before you wrote that.
Well, and, the reason MOHELA didn't want to sue was because it didn't think it would be injured! So even if you agree that MOHELA is part of Missouri (which is hard to take seriously since the whole reason MOHELA exists is to legally separate it from Missouri for liability reasons), the theory of injury to Missouri and/or MOHELA is pretty bullshitty.
MOHELA is a political subdivision of the state. It exists and exercises power solely under the authority and at the sufferance of the state. It could be abolished tomorrow.
The Missouri AG has the right to represent any agency of the state in court, and bring a lawsuit on their behalf. Why didn't he simply commandeer MOHELA to bring the suit, just as he could for, say, the state's department of corrections?
Instead, MOHELA, through its own lawyers, explicitly decided to stay out of the case, and actively resisted efforts by the AG to use them to manufacture standing. How could that be, pray tell, if they were a subdivision of the state?
The Court agreed with me.
"MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself."
Your view lost.
"The Court agreed with me. Your view lost."
Yeah, no shit. That tends to happen when the court is composed of six reactionary hacks who use their power to pursue a policy-driven agenda. Has nothing to do with whether they faithfully applied the law as it existed.
The Court agreed with me.
That has never ever stopped you from commenting on issues when the Court disagreed with you.
It's telling that standing was the only chance Biden had to win.
"Of course it's illegal, but nobody has standing to challenge it." Is a hell of an argument to go to the Supreme Court with a 400 billion loan forgiveness plan.
I wasn't aware that there was a case before SCOTUS regarding the PPP loans. Can you point me to the case?
Ha ha major questions doctrine. Such bad faith. Just be honest and rule it illegal because you don't like or agree with it.
The president can’t just work around the power of the purse simply because he has votes to buy.
SCOTUS said they didn’t like that.
That is not what SCOTUS said. They said the loan forgiveness was illegal because it wasn't authorized by the HEROES act. And they used the major questions doctrine to reach that conclusion, at least partially.
How about simply declaring it illegal because it’s….illegal.
Do none of the zealots give a shit about the separation of powers anymore?
As I've commented before, if the action was clearly not authorized by the language of the statute, SCOTUS could so decide. They would have no need for made-up doctrines like the major questions doctrine. They only use that doctrine to strike down actions where the authorizing language is vague enough to include something they wish to strike down.
It’s actually your contention that a president can change a law any way they see fit after congress passes it? Seriously?
This was patently illegal. The easiest decision the SC has ever had to make. The embarrassment on this particular case are the three judges on the left who don’t seem to give a shit about checks and balances.
Did you even read the case? Congress passed a law explicitly authorizing the President to waive or modify student loans during emergencies such as covid. No one is arguing that "a president can change any law any way they see fit." You, as always, are just falling into the right wing's echo chamber again.
No, that is not my contention.
If the language is vague, then maybe Congress authorized a specific action and maybe it didn't. It is hardly controversial to say that it's the role of the judiciary — not the executive — to say what the law is. ("it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.")
Yes sir, I completely agree. I suppose my problem is in the method they used to arrive at the conclusion that the action was outside the text of the statute.
The major question doctrine
One side argues that the executive branch can only do what congress specifically authorizes.
One side argues that the executive can do anything unless specifically barred by congress.
Which argument is most faithful to the actual US Constitution?
Well, the liberals are on this side.
Does that mean conservatives believe this? I mean, I guess it tracks. Trump certainly did.
The argument is entirely about what Congress specifically authorized . Your second "one side" is a straw man, an argument no one is making. At least I hope no one is making it.
No, one side argues that the executive branch can only do what Congress specifically authorizes. The other side argues that the executive branch can do what Congress broadly authorizes.
I'm on the side that when Congress says any, that means any.
I hope Prof. Somin will write more on the college affirmative action case, particularly why he feels colleges admissions should be based on merit, while the United States (and presumably all nations) should have an "open admissions" policy on immigrants. He denounces a merit-based immigration system as racist, but demands merit-based university admissions, going so far as to ridicule the idea that "diversity" has value in a student body. Is it the bias of the academic, who believes the quality of the university student is more important than the quality of the citizen?
That was brilliant = He denounces a merit-based immigration system as racist, but demands merit-based university admissions, going so far as to ridicule the idea that “diversity” has value in a student body.
I do not think that Professor Somin will take the challenge.
That is a great question.
Why shouldn't universities accept everyone and educate and house and feed all comers for free? If it's good enough for the rest of the US population on the immigration issue, it should be good enough for universities.
An obvious reason why that's dumb is that college admissions are zero sum, while immigration isn't. Also, while it might be possible to discern what constitutes merit in academia, what is "merit" for immigration?
Agree 100%. I don't even know how you'd decide how many immigration slots there should be (based on objective metrics), while the University's calculus is pretty straightforward.
I'd also note our immigration system is hardly merit-based in any sense, prioritizing family unification, and putting arbitrary quotas on immigration based on country-of-origin.
I would dispute that immigration is "zero sum", as evidenced by immigrants crowding homeless shelters among other things. And, of course, some colleges do have "open admissions", subject to some space requirements naturally, but in the age of the internet and webcam, pretty much everybody can take a college course from home.
As for what constitutes "merit" for immigrants, contra Somin's premise that no one can be excluded, we could begin with, for example, not allowing convicted murderers and rapists into the country. I doubt many would object to such a restriction. The rest is legislative detail. If, for example, there's a shortage of engineers at a given moment, we allow in some engineers.
It is not a difference of kind, but of scale.
College admissions are only a zero sum because universities decided that. If the US can't decide on immigration limits, universities shouldn't be allowed to decide to limit enrollment.
No, college admissions are zero sum because there are only a certain number of students that the school has the capacity to handle.
(And to prebut your response, there's no reason to think that the U.S. has a fixed carrying capacity, or that if it does that this capacity is lower than the number of people seeking to come here + the number people already here.)
"There’s no reason to think that" universities can only handle a "fixed carrying capacity" of new enrollees.
See? When you don’t give a shit about the burdens on others, then you can handwave away all their concerns. University people should step up and help everyone! Stop being "cruel”!
We can all start caring about the burdens of unlimited enrollment on university jerks the day after guys like you and Somin start caring about the burdens on Americans from unlimited migration. Until then, all university concerns can be havewaved away or otherwise addressed with (Lol) "keyhole solutions".
Poor Ben.
Forced to be an unthinking asshole because so many people disagree with his unthinking asshole views.
As opposed to you, who chooses to be an unthinking asshole for the fun of it?
"No, college admissions are zero sum because there are only a certain number of students that the school has the capacity to handle."
Huh? Schools can increase capacity, or we can create more schools. There's no sense of the term "zero sum" that applies to college admissions.
Why is college admissions zero sum? Because colleges decide on a number of students that they're going to admit based on the use of their resources -- number of faculty, classrooms, dorms, etc. -- and then won't admit anyone over that number. So accepting one is rejecting another. But it's not like there's some inherent natural law that a freshman class at Harvard can only be X number of people. That's the school's choice.
Countries can similarly decide on how many immigrants they want to admit based on the use of their resources -- social services, jobs, housing, etc. There's no inherent distinction there, the math is just easier for colleges so that's all you want to look at.
OK, haven't been following the Student Loan Forgiveness ish-yew that closely, paid mine off in 1993, and both daughters got Ath-uh-letic and ROTC Scholarships, on top of the Georgia "Hope" Scholarship,
BUTTTTTTT
they only forgave $10,000 per person??? OK, if I see a $10,000 bill lying on the ground I'll pick it up, it's not chump change, but certainly nothing to get too riled up about. And wouldn't being "forgiven" of $10,000 of loans be considered "Income" so depending on the Bracket it's even less...
Frank
Good. I don’t support forgiveness even though I owe $180k in loans (initial balances were $80k–the rest is accrued interest) for a bachelor’s a master’s that I’ve been paying on for decades and will likely be paying for decades to come. What I do support is student loan debt being treated like other debt; it should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. There are serious and long-lasting effects to bankruptcy. Additionally, I’d support revoking the educational credentials of anyone who declares bankruptcy on student loan debt. This would mean purging transcripts and degree verification systems. Finally, I’d support resetting balances to principal with interest rate pegged to inflation. I fully support getting the federal government entirely out of the education market, but that’s a pipe dream.
Decades? $180K? You must have some hard luck stories to tell.
I support student loan debt being dischargeable in bankruptcy without showing undue hardship or whatever the ridiculous standard is.
That said, be prepared for it to be impossible for people like the Rev. Kirkland to be able to borrow for degrees in transgender studies and gay sex.
I support student loan debt being dischargeable in bankruptcy without showing undue hardship or whatever the ridiculous standard is.
The problem here is since 2010, the federal government has made all student loans (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010).
Get the federal government out of the student lending business, and have banks, credit unions, fintechs, universities and colleges, and/or other private actors make the loans. Allow the lenders to properly underwrite the loans, including setting interest rates commensurate with the risk (STEM degrees may come with lower interest rates than Poetry of the Underwater Unicorn degrees) and prevent lawsuits against the lenders based on the denial of loans or the setting of higher interest rates, if underwriting shows the risk of lending $100k+ for a degree in Poetry of the Underwater Unicorn would result in a higher risk of default and I might get behind it; however, as long as the taxpayer, who did not take out the loan, had no decision in making the loan, and is on the hook for the loan, no.
If it were treated like other debt, then most students would be completely unable to access it, as they have no income, assets, credit, or collateral. Nobody (other than the government, of course) would be dumb enough to loan money to college students if those debts could be readily discharged. (Almost all new college grads would be eligible for bankruptcy discharge.)
On the contrary, many people would offer money to college students in those conditions.
First, we know that because during the many decades before the current student loan takeover, money was nevertheless available and lots of people were able to go to school. Second, we know that because those same financial institutions make all kinds of credit offers to those same youth in other contexts. Yes, it's higher interest and yes your ability to get money is predicated on predictions about your ability to repay - which is why engineers and nurses never had trouble getting the money they needed but the underwater basket-weaving and professional grievances majors struggled.
Except it wasn't. Who was taking out $200k in loans, the type of figure we routinely hear horror stories about today? (I'm not saying that everyone takes out that much, of course. Most don't. But it's not uncommon.)
And of course kids could get loans if their parents co-signed. But if that returned as a requirement, then students wouldn't really be able to discharge them in bankruptcy, as it would just screw over their families if they did.
High-interest-rate revolving credit is nothing like a low-interest-rate long, fixed term loan with all the money loaned at once, up front.
"it should be dischargeable in bankruptcy"
Senator Joe Biden [D-MBNA] had a lot to do with it not being dischargeable. Ironic.
Thr government created this system intentionally to make you suffer so you would then be captured by them for relief.
They lose power if you don't suffer.
The central case on the standing question was Arkasas v. Texas. In that case, the state of Arkansas sued the State of Texas under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, claiming that Texas was interfering with a contract the University of Arkansas had entered into with a Texas foundation to build a hospital wing. The Supreme Court held that because the Universitu of Arkansas was an instrumentality of the State of Arkansas, the state could step into its shoes and sue for it in the Supreme Court, and accordingly original jurisdiction was proper.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/346/368.html
Standing appears to be a malleable thing--whether it's loan forgiveness or CO2 or illegal immigration.
The fact is this--yes, Biden's order harmed MOHELA as servicer, but how in the world does MOHELA have the arguable right to insert itself in how the borrower/lender address their relationship post-origination. Let's say we narrowed this case down to one loan, and the government was simply not going to enforce the loan (for whatever reason), no one would think MOHELA had standing.
I applaud the result. But I don't think Missouri had standing thru MOHELA.
I think any state should have standing to sue the federal government for anything being done unlawfully, as the federal government is ultimately a creation of the states, collectively. They all have a justiciable interest when their creation is running amok people someone like Pedo Joe is at the helm.
Once more: I know it fits your neoconfederate Weltanschauung, but the claim is false. The federal government is not a creation of the states.
Yes, it is. You're an idiot.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
Yes, conventions of the people, not the state governments. The people as a whole ratified the constitution, not the states.
"The people as a whole ratified the constitution, not the states."
Not sure what this means. The Constitution was ratified by conventions of people in the individual states.
Discussed more fully in a prior thread but it actually is. The People had no role in appointing the representatives to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The representatives themselves had no individual vote - members within each state would vote to decide how to place their state's one vote on each action or issue (and if they were evenly divided, the state abstained on that issue). Ratification was also done by vote of the States, not by popular vote. In every practical sense, the federal government was created by the states.
I don't see how the mechanics of how the Constitutional Convention was formed or how it operated is relevant. The finished article was ratified in conventions of the people, not by the state governments. When you say "ratification was also done by vote of the States," I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, the conventions were organized in each individual state, but it was the people of the state who ratified, not the state itself through its elected government.
And that wasn't an accident; the constitutional convention made an express choice to bypass the states and put it to the people of the states.
I think you mean to "bypass the state governments and put it to the people of the states." And no one claimed that the Federal Government was a creation of the state governments.
Are you claiming that the Federal Government is not a creation of the states, but of the people of the states? What distinction do you see?
As many have pointed out, yes, the federal government is a creation of the states.
History is not your strong point Neirporent.
Two people tried to make that case, entirely unconvincingly. The ratification process of the constitution was specifically designed to be a ratification by the people, NOT the states. The people in convention, NOT state governments. This is constitutional history 101 stuff.
Right result, crap opinion.
Major Questions is not required to reach this result.
This is a janky way to get standing.
As I've said before, I think the loan forgiveness was good policy but that statute didn't grant that authority.
And if you see a flaw in standing regarding government benefits, make an exception don't rube-goldberg your way into a one-time thing; it will come up again.
How exactly is it "good policy" to give free stuff to people?
Here’s the problem. The court has decided that it should insert itself into controversial hot-button issues because they’re controversial. The more controversial the issue, the more the court feels the need to jump in.
This flaw is inherent to the “major questions doctrine” which is generally described as being triggered by “economic and political significance.” (Roberts and Barrett together use that phrase six times.) In other words, they’ve decided to inject themselves into political questions because they’re political.
This is an admission by the conservatives that they’re running an activist court. Whenever the president does something “politically significant,” they get to run in and stop it. That’s exactly backwards. The political branches are responsible for politics. The court should avoid injecting itself into politics (and injecting politics into its decisions) and stick to dispassionate analysis.
"they’re running an activist court"
Unlike the New Deal and Warren courts I guess
Your side was the driving force in making the court a super legislature.
Goose, gander.
"Unlike the New Deal and Warren courts I guess."
You can make that argument as to the Warren court, but to claim the New Deal court was "activist" is just nonsensical. Unless 'activist" means nothing more than "I don't like it." That era was the court at its most deferential to the elected branches.
"Your side was the driving force in making the court a super legislature."
You want to go all the way back to the New Deal era, but just forget about the Lochner era? Maybe best to just evaluate each court on its own merits rather than run through the tedious historical tit-for-tat.
LOL salty about the fucking New Deal.
Who cares why they've decided to inject themselves? Pedo Joe's action was clearly illegal. Period.
Twitter people are clowning on Kagan:
"I just found my son watching The Walking Dead and crying. He looked up at me, lip trembling, and asked, “Mommy, does today’s SCOTUS ruling mean Rick and his friends would still have to pay their student loans while being chased by zombies?”"
https://twitchy.com/dougp/2023/06/30/scotus-justice-kegans-dissent-contains-a-hypothetical-that-you-have-to-see-to-believe-n2384997
Very serious concerns by a very serious justice.
It's pretty sad that your favorite site doesn't know how to spell Kagan's name... in the headline.
But anyway... she's got a point. All these "major question" cases where the conservatives are saying "Congress couldn't possibly have meant that!" are really just them applying their policy preferences to the outcomes. If there was an emergency situation where they thought loan forgiveness was an appropriate policy response, they'd be totally fine with it, even as a unilateral executive action.
It's all just about making social policy through the unelected courts.
“she’s got a point”
After a nuclear attack on a large American city, Congress would not pass relief legislation? It would be up to a minor cabinet official to save the day?
Her “point” is dumb, a badly thought out hypo that the worst prof at the worst law school would be ashamed to write.
After a nuclear attack on a large American city, Congress would not pass relief legislation?
Maybe, but that's not really relevant to the hypo. The question is what would SCOTUS do, not what would Congress do. (And actually, what Congress would do would depend a lot on SCOTUS. They probably think they already did pass emergency debt relief in the form of the HEROES Act.)
It's the kind of thing you think about, then immediately decide not to write it down because it sounds too dumb. Except she didn't do that second part and actually wrote it down.
I just thought the tweet was funny.
"Conservatives are getting better at comedy and it's making lefties nervous."
"Getting better"? who's a "lefty" comedian thats funny? Colbert? I admit most of them are unintentionally funny (Chucky Schumer, "Pencil Neck" and Jamie Raskin wearing a doo-rag like he's friggin Steve Van Zandt, Oh, and Common-Law Harris saying anything, and Senescent Joe trying to do anything.
Lol at Senator Schumer bitching about this. One of the few people on the planet in a position to actually try to enact a policy that he considers to be necessary and all he can think of to do is whine about it. Trying to cede congressional power to the executive - which will ultimately be very harmful - and he’s too damn stupid to comprehend that he’s doing it.
We elect clowns like this to lead us and then are amazed when our government is a clown show.
He doesn’t have the votes. He does have a bit of a bully pulpit.
Schumer is dumb as hell in plenty of ways. This is a pretty anodyne thing to get mad about,
He could try to get the votes for some part of the policy he wants by giving the other side something in return. That was normal congressional dealmaking pre-Obama.
Ben just fell of the turnup truck yesterday, I guess.
Your determination as to when dealmaking like that ended is pretty hilarious.
Didn’t end. Still happens.
Democrats decided half the population should be excluded from society and governance sometime during the Obama Administration.
Dark Brandon just did something almost as good…RepooplicKKKunts fail again. Have fun losing, loser.
This is hilarious.
Earlier this week, the court said "you know, this law is decades old, and congress has had so many opportunities to clarify what they meant. That they haven't is, itself, a statement that they're okay with it how it's been used."
Here, the court said "you know, this law is decades old, and congress has had so many opportunities to clarify what they meant. That they haven't is, itself, a statement that they want us to intervene."
Textualism!
Face it folks, "Major Questions Doctrine" is as fabricated as "Qualified Immunity", aka, it's something courts pulled out of their asses because they didn't like an outcome but couldn't support their preferred outcome with the actual law.
Just like the affirmative action ruling this ruling is inconsequential. And Republicans have a boner for the baby killer DeSantis…this generation of RepooplicKKKunt activists have spent 30 years fighting and all they have to show for it are a few inconsequential court decisions and a 37% top tax rate.
That's absolute bullshit, and you know it. While I strongly disagree with the VRA jurisprudence requiring "majority minority" districts, that has been the case for 50 years, which means 25 separate Congresses haven't overruled it. I don't think that should be dispositive, but it is.
Pedo Joe's illegal plan was announced last year. To argue they're even remotely similar is manifest bad faith.
Major doctrine, schmajor doctrine. All the court has to say is “Congress wrote a law. The executive should execute the law as written without resorting to a laughable premise to change the law”. All the lawyers are doing the lawyer thing of making things super complicated just because.
The difficulty comes in parsing what Congress meant when they "wrote a law." Although it seems clear enough to you that Biden's loan forgiveness fell outside the text of the HEROES act, apparently it wasn't as clear to SCOTUS, who felt the need to use the major decisions doctrine to reach that conclusion. In my humble opinion, the text of the act giving the President authority to waive student loan debt during an emergency at least arguably authorizes President Biden's actions.
Might have helped the legitimacy of the approach if he bothered to take it during the pandemic rather than after it was obviously over.
Why is this even a priority? He’s decided to tilt at a different windmill for the same purpose. So he is expending max effort subverting our constitutional system for no apparent purpose. It’s certainly not an attempt at being fair, because so many student debtors get no relief. And as I posted earlier, it’s not at all popular.
And of course, as is typical, he’s doing nothing to solve the underlying problem. In our idiotic political culture, the underlying problem never even comes up.
He's doing it to buy votes. That's all Democraps do.
Yeah, I'm not defending this on policy grounds. I'm not even 100% convinced it's authorized by the statute. I just find SCOTUS' reasoning here offensive, and artificial.
And I do not agree that he is "subverting our constitutional system," at least with this action. At worst, he is misinterpreting a statute.
The SCOTUS seems to disagree with you. For 77 pages.