Oral hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a high-profile student loan forgiveness case Biden vs. Nebraska, pitting two of the legal doctrines favored by the conservative majority against each other.
The case for ending President Biden’s program, which would have forgiven about $400 billion in state student loan debt, hinges on the court’s recent “big questions” doctrine. This doctrine, whose legal origins are questionable and whose outlines are still being worked out, says that for “major” issues of “major economic or political importance” the court requires a clear statement of intent from Congress rather than invoking the executive power. interpretations of the law.
In that case, given the undeniably high price of forgiveness, the judges could use their new doctrine to rule that the Secretary of Education does not have the authority to forgive up to $20,000 in federal loan obligations per borrower.
The Biden administration did so under a provision of the HERO Act that authorizes the president to “waiver or modify any provision” of the student loan program in an emergency. The Trump administration used this provision to suspend loan repayment obligations at the height of the COVID contagion. The program in question took the next step of full forgiveness to fulfill Biden’s campaign promise to reduce US student debt, which surpasses even our total credit card debt.
But the court’s right wing faces a dilemma. During the arguments, it became clear that perhaps the strongest point of the Biden administration is legal status, another issue close to the hearts of conservatives. The court upheld the constitutional requirement that the federal judiciary should hear only cases in which the plaintiff suffered “actual harm” — specific, specific damages, strictly police.
This limitation is very important here. Biden v. Nebraska was brought by six Republican attorneys general who opposed the student loan tax on political grounds. That’s fine, but they have yet to prove an injury. And neither state seems to have suffered any damage from the student loan forgiveness: Who cares if the federal government doesn’t want their $20,000 back from a particular borrower?
Missouri tried to make a consistent argument based on its own Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, known by the acronym MOHELA, that forgiving loans could at least potentially lose revenue. The problem is that MOHELA was established as an independent company with its own legal status and status and is not a party to this lawsuit. In fact, Missouri’s relationship with MOHELA is so contentious that it couldn’t obtain documents from the agency without filing the state equivalent of a Freedom of Information Act request.
The Court’s Conservatives maintain the legal principle that (with a few exceptions not discussed here) a litigant has no right to recover damages from a third party. As the Biden administration argues, the results would be so far-reaching that banks could sue anyone who financially harms their borrowers.
Interestingly, the court emphasized that both the standing and main question doctrines were driven by the separation of powers. Permanent power limits the power of the judiciary and prevents it from intervening in political issues reserved for the political echelons. And the Big Questions Doctrine limits the power of the executive branch and prevents it from making major decisions that Congress has not expressly authorized.
As many critics have pointed out, the lead questions doctrine easily serves the court’s broader agenda of clipping the wings of the administrative state. But to invoke this doctrine, conservatives must sidestep the reputation issue – which they believe is essential to curbing their own industry.
The fault lines in Tuesday’s arguments were well known. The court’s three progressives tended to uphold the program — with Judge Elena Kagan offering a particularly strong defense of the pardon, which Congress clearly approved — while the six conservatives sounded eager to use the Big Questions doctrine to push it. to break.
But several questions seemed to explore the possibility that the three Liberals could relieve two members of the Conservative wing to keep the challengers from standing, which would make the case go away. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a potential recruit to the case because of her questions.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had a particularly elegant questioning style, emphasizing the separation of powers underlying both the Standing and Guiding Questions doctrines and pointing out that the court has equal fidelity at all levels must stick to the principle.
So the case boils down to whether the court will choose to strike out what it sees as the sweeping exercise of administrative powers for a purpose that, perhaps not coincidentally, harms Republicans.
The hearing suggested that progressives will be the standing hawks here, while conservatives will be more likely to seek benefits and drop the program. The outcome of this cerebral doctrinal battle could come as a very real and dire surprise to the millions of Americans who have been promised much-needed aid.
Harry Litman is the host of the Talking FBI Podcast. @harrylitmann
Source: LA Times
Roger Stone is an author and opinion journalist who writes for 24 News Globe. He is known for his controversial and thought-provoking views on a variety of topics, and has a talent for engaging readers with his writing.
