Today the Supreme Court decided to hear Department of Education v Brown, a second case challenging the legality of President Biden’s $400 billion loan forgiveness plan.in a short commandThe court said the case will be argued in February, possibly at the same time as another loan forgiveness case before the judge: Biden v. Nebraska, The lawsuit was brought by six Republican-controlled state governments.Meanwhile, as in the other case, the Supreme Court has refused to stay a lower court’s ruling on the scheme, thus ensuring that it will remain blocked, at least until oral argument and possibly until the court makes a final decision on the merits. The reason is My posts about Biden v. NebraskaThe justice’s refusal to preserve the lower court’s ruling may not bode well for the Biden administration.
The two cases are also similar in that they involve both standing and merits disputes (both issues to be considered by the Supreme Court).but Brown Notably, this is the only case so far in which a court has made a decision on the merits:
I summed up Brown case here:
[Brown was] Represented by the conservative Job Creators Network (JCN), it was brought — somewhat ironically — by two plaintiffs who felt the scheme was not generous enough. To thwart lawsuits by ensuring no potential plaintiffs stand, the government may exclude borrowers of its federal student loans from the program. Held by a private commercial lenderThe latter are considered more likely to sue than other student loan servicers.
As a result of the move, one of the plaintiffs in the JCN case is one of the borrowers excluded from the Biden plan. Another is eligible for $10,000 in relief, and would receive $20,000 if he were a Pell Grant recipient. They argued they were eligible because the executive branch passed the plan without going through the “notice and comment” process normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act, which would have given them an opportunity to criticize their exclusion and urge the plan wider range. Plaintiffs cited precedent showing that the deprivation of procedural rights can sometimes be identified as “injury.”
exist ruling On November 10, Federal District Judge Mark T. Pittman accepted this standing doctrine of procedural rights. So he dealt with the merits of the case—becoming the first judge to do so. On the merits, he concluded that the legislation the Biden administration relied on, the 2003 Heroes Act, did not authorize the program. …
Judge Pittman concluded that, based on current Supreme Court precedent, the loan forgiveness program qualifies as a policy to address a “substantial problem” and thus requires an express congressional mandate that the Heroes Act did not grant. …
Based on this reasoning, Judge Pittman issued a ruling that struck down the loan forgiveness policy, effectively prohibiting its implementation nationwide. …
Judge Pittman’s position in his ruling on standing is more questionable. Even if the deprivation of procedural rights may be an adequate injury, it is not clear that the ruling that the program was unconstitutional provided a remedy for that injury. … If I understand him correctly, he addressed the issue by arguing that if the courts struck down the Heroes Act rationale for the policy, the Biden administration might go back to the drawing board and try to find other ways to implement loan forgiveness, maybe that Yes Subject to the APA, the two plaintiffs will therefore be given an opportunity to participate in the notice and comment process.
This strikes me as very speculative. But I admit that I am not an expert on the highly specialized doctrine of procedural status of rights. So maybe I’m missing something…
as in my previous post discuss BrownI think plaintiff’s standing argument in this case is weaker than Biden v. Nebraska. But maybe most Supreme Court justices disagree.Regardless, I think they’re likely to conclude that in at least one of the cases, at least some of the plaintiffs Do have status. If so, I think it is also possible (albeit uncertain) that the court will rule against the Biden administration on the merits.
I discussed it before Biden v. Nebraska and related lower court decisions here, here, here, hereand here. For my more general criticism of the legal basis for the loan forgiveness program – which has a lot in common with Donald Trump’s attempt to divert funds to build his border wall – see here. For an overview of eligibility issues, which, at least on this here.
Some defenders of the program argue that it can be more justified under the Higher Education Act of 1965 rather than the Heroes Act. I criticize this alternative rationale (at least so far, the Biden administration has not adopted it) here.
