Supreme Court asked to allow Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan


The Biden administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to reinstate its student loan program, saying it was well within the authority of the secretary of education and the decided the court held it “left millions of bad creditor in limbo.”

US Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar criticized the 3-0 decision on Monday by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. He joined a coalition of six state Republican-led leaders who asked the court to dismiss the debt during the litigation. The order shall remain in effect until further orders are issued by the court or the Supreme Court.

Prelogar said that the states do not have laws to challenge the management of the work, and however, the federal law gives a broad right to students to transfer students. learn to borrow money in an emergency, such as an epidemic. Presidents Trump and Biden have both proposed a ban on refunds.

“Congress has determined that a national emergency may require student loan financing for affected borrowers, and Congress has specifically authorized the Secretary to provide assistance without delay,” Prelogar wrote in the administration’s petition to the court. “Here, the secretary has decided that assistance should be provided to ensure that borrowers do not default on their loans or enter into a default when the debt is repaid , with a potentially negative impact on their credit and financial future.”

Read the administration’s case to the Supreme Court

The 8th ruling comes days after a federal judge in Texas declared that President Biden’s funding was illegal, barring the Department of Education from accepting several application and cancellation of debts. The administration’s lawyers asked the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to stay the decision in the Texas case, and for a speedy decision.

Also Read :  Weather timeline for more Sacramento rain, Sierra snow this week

Prelogar told the Supreme Court that if it chooses not to overturn the 8th Circuit’s ruling, it must accept the case quickly and hear the merits of the arguments in February. . While the court normally waits for the appeals process, it has chosen this way in the competition for the enforcement of the law on immigration and vaccines. Hours after Prelogar’s indictment on Friday, the justices asked the states to file responses by Wednesday afternoon.

Biden “can’t criminalize the school loan system for millions of hard-working Americans who are in debt!” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R), one of the leaders who filed the lawsuit, wrote in tweet Friday. “I’ve gone all the way to the Supreme Court before to win & I’ll do it again.”

Biden’s loan plan would eliminate up to $10,000 in federal debt for student loans of up to $125,000 annually, or up to $250,000 for married couples. Those who receive Pell Grants are eligible to receive an additional $10,000 waiver. To date, more than 26 million people have applied for financial assistance, and 16 million of the documents have been reviewed, according to the education department.

After six repayment periods, pressure from Congress and activists, the White House made federal student loans. (Photo: Michael Cadenhead/Washington Post)

The Justice Department released a 25-page memo in August after announcing the service. that said the program was authorized by the 2003 law, the Higher Education Poverty Alleviation for Students Act (HEROES Act). This law allows the secretary of education “to reduce the hardship that federal student loan borrowers may suffer due to national emergencies.” It was first used in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but has since been used in other emergencies.

Also Read :  Missile tests were practice to attack South Korean and US targets

But the Republican-led state and other opponents of the project have argued that the measure of debt relief, at a cost of about $300 billion over 10 years, needs special authorization in the group political because there is business and politics.

The lawsuit filed in September by six states – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – Accuses the president of overstepping his authority and threatening the revenue of state agencies that benefit from federal student loans. At least seven lawsuits have been filed to try to stop it.

The 8th Circuit ruled there was standing, at least for Missouri, to bring the challenge on behalf of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a state arm that owns and serves federal students. borrowed. The lawsuit said that MOHELA, which finances the state’s aid, will lose revenue from the direct loan service – those created and owned by the government – that are canceled.

States have also claimed that MOHELA and state resources funded by the Federal Family Education Loan Program could be financially harmed if borrowers put their debts into Direct Loan program to qualify for assistance. Biden’s administration in late September said those gatherings would no longer be eligible for amnesty.

Biden’s student loan payments will be limited. Can you still apply?

Also Read :  Train crosses North Korea border into Russia after arms report, think tank says

The panel also said that the delay was necessary because “important questions of law remain to be resolved” and it would be too late to resolve them if the program children have worked.

Prelogar told the Supreme Court that the relationship between MOHELA and the state was too weak to show standing. And he rejected the state’s argument that the program went beyond what Congress had authorized.

The loan forgiveness program, he wrote, was more targeted than the previous approach by Trump and Biden, which simply postponed the repayment of debts for everyone with federal loans student loans.

Biden helped decide to extend the student loan freeze after the court lost

After careful study, Prelogar noted, the secretary of education found that reducing the principal’s debt from the easiest borrowers “will increase the risk that the action illegal and illegal prices will rise above the level before the spread,” once the payment is back. “The secretary thus ‘ensures’ the purpose of the Act: that borrowers will not be placed in a disadvantageous position in relation to their loans.”

It rejected the state’s argument that special congressional authorization is required under the “critical question” doctrine, which the Supreme Court has addressed in recent times. to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to fight climate change.

“Since it was first introduced in 2003, the Department has been revising the HEROES Act to provide class-wide relief to certain borrowers, and as of March 2020, the Trump and Biden Presidents Take the Law to provide relief to all borrowers,” he wrote. . “Pandemic-related programs are estimated to cost the federal government more than $100 billion.”

The case is Biden v. State of Nebraska, et al.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Articles

Back to top button