Why the ruling on Biden's student loan forgiveness plan could have legal implications beyond debt relief
From CNN's Ariane de Vogue
The Supreme Court is set to rule soon on a headline-grabbing case concerning President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program that will affect the finances of millions of Americans.
Critics, including the Republican-led states that have sued, say the initiative amounts to an unlawful attempt to erase an estimated $430 billion of federal student-loan debt under the guise of the pandemic.
The US Supreme Court is expected to hand down its opinion on the program after hearing oral arguments in the state-led case plus another brought by individual borrowers backed by a conservative group in February.
While most of the attention so far is focused on whether the Department of Education exceeded its authority in implementing the program, some court watchers are focused on an equally important procedural issue that is a major part of the case: whether the red states behind the challenge have the legal right, or “standing” to bring the dispute in the first place.
The court could rule to dismiss the challenges if they decide the plaintiffs do not have the "standing."
The concept of standing is one that requires a party to establish an actual or imminent injury to get into court. Simply disagreeing with a policy is not enough. In recent years, states from one party have felt increasingly emboldened to come to court to sue an administration from a different party over a controversial policy. For the Biden administration, the issue is of critical importance now, especially as Republican-led states feel they have an advantage with the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.
Professor Samuel Bray of Notre Dame Law School said it’s a problem for both Democratic and Republican administrations and he worries about states using the judicial branch to bring federal policymaking to a standstill.
Judges are meant to decide concrete disputes between parties, the thinking goes, and they should not engage in political or policy debates better left to the other branches of government.
Here's what is at stake in the SCOTUS decision on Biden's student loan forgiveness program
From CNN's Katie Lobosco
Students make their way through the Sather Gate near Sproul Plaza on the University of California, Berkeley, campus in March 2022. Eric Risberg/AP
About 26 million people had already applied for President Joe Biden's federal student loan forgiveness program when a federal district court judge struck down the plan in early November last year.
The fate of the unprecedented debt cancellation program now lies with the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide by the end of this term to either uphold or strike down the proposal. No student loan debt has been canceled, despite the fact that the government approved 16 millionapplications eligible for relief last year.
A group of Republican-led states and other conservative groups took the Biden administration to court over the program, claiming that the executive branch does not have the power to so broadly cancel student debt in the proposed manner.
Critics also point out that the one-time student loan forgiveness program does nothing to address the cost of college for future students and could even lead to an increase in tuition.Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a bill to block the program. Both the Senate and the House passed the measure, but Biden vetoed the bill in early June.
The forgiveness program, which is estimated to cost about $400 billion, would fulfill Biden’s campaign promise to cancel some student loan debt and would delight progressives, as well as put some borrowers in a better financial position when the pause on payments and interest accrual expires later this year.
Most federal student loans have been frozen since March 2020 when a pause meant to protect borrowers struggling financially due to the Covid-19 pandemic went into place. Paymentswill be due starting in Octoberno matter how the Supreme Court rules on the one-time forgiveness program.
Who would be eligible for student loan forgiveness? The Biden administration has estimated that more than 40 million federal student loan borrowers would qualify for some level of debt cancellation, with roughly 20 million who would have their balance forgiven entirely, if the forgiveness program is allowed to move forward.
But not everyone with a federally held student loan would qualify. Individual borrowers who made less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 a year could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven. If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual could be eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness.
Federal student loans that are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders are not eligible unless the borrower applied to consolidate those loans into a Direct Loan by September 29, 2022.
Read more about Biden's student loan program here.
16 min ago
White House bracing for SCOTUS decision on Biden's student loan program
From CNN's Kevin Liptak and Arlette Saenz
President Joe Biden delivers remarks on student loan debt relief at Delaware State University on Friday, October 21, 2022, in Dover, Delaware. Evan Vucci/AP
The White House is bracing for today’s Supreme Court’s ruling that will determine the fate of President Joe Biden’s student loan program.
Administration officials at the White House and Department of Education have been preparing behind the scenes for various outcomes for months. There have been contingency plan discussions within the administration centered on various policy options for borrowers and providing information on other administration programs meant to help borrowers, an administration official said.
The administration has been lobbied by progressive lawmakers over the past several months to develop a legal “plan B” should the relief program be struck down. Some of the lobbying has centered on the 1965 Higher Education Act as an alternative legal rationale for the program. But it remained unclear if the administration would consider that route, which would likely draw another court challenge. Some officials suggested there was little appetite for a drawn out legal battle.
If the court’s ruling allows the now-stalled program to move forward, the administration’s focus would turn to implementing the president’s student debt relief plan. Twenty-six million borrowers applied for the relief program last year, and 16 million applications were already approved. But discharging that relief has been on hold due to the legal challenges. The administration likely would soon start sending guidance to borrowers and service providers on next steps as well as trying to get the application website back up and running.
In March, Biden told CNN he’s “confident we’re on the right side of the law” but acknowledged he was “not confident of the outcome of the decision yet."
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona today would not detail what plans the administration has in place if the Supreme Court rules against the student debt relief program but told CNN's Phil Mattingly on CNN This Morning, “We’re prepared.”
“Right now, my focus is on the case we put forward,” Cardona said. “We’re prepared and it’s in our DNA at the Department of Education to fight for students and to fight for borrowers who right now need a little bit of support.”
16 min ago
What to know about the 2 big cases yet to be determined by the Supreme Court
From CNN's Ariane de Vogue
Student loan borrowers and advocates gather for the People's Rally To Cancel Student Debt During The Supreme Court Hearings On Student Debt Relief on February 28, 2023 in Washington, DC. Jemal Countess/Getty Images for People's Rally to Cancel Student Debt
Friday marks the final day of the 2022-23 Supreme Court term, and momentous cases concerning student loan payments and LGBTQ rights will be released.
The rulings could lead to fiery opinions and dissents read from the bench, and they will come as the court finds itself in the center of a spotlight usually reserved for members of the political branches due to allegations that the justices are not transparent enough when it comes to their ethics disclosures, most recently with Justice Samuel Alito last week.
Here's what to know about the remaining cases to be decided:
Republican-led states and conservatives challenging the program say it amounts to an unlawful attempt to erase an estimated $430 billion of federal student loan debt under the guise of the pandemic.
At the heart of the case is the Department of Education’s authority to forgive the loans. Several of the conservative justices have signaled in recent years that agencies – with no direct accountability to the public – have become too powerful, upsetting the separation of powers.
They have moved to cut back on the so-called administrative state.
In court, Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as some other conservatives, seemed deeply skeptical of the Biden administration’s plan.
Can businesses deny services to LGBTQ customers? At the center of another case is a graphic designer, Lorie Smith, who seeks to expand her business and create custom websites to celebrate weddings – but does not want to work with gay couples out of religious objections to same-sex marriage.
Smith has not yet moved forward with her new business venture because of Colorado’s public accommodations law. Under the law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. Smith, whose company is called 303 Creative LLC, said that she is willing to work with all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, but she draws the line at creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriage because expressing such a message would be inconsistent with her beliefs.
The state and supporters of LGBTQ rights say that Smith is simply seeking a license to discriminate.
The conservatives on the court were sympathetic at oral arguments to those put forward by Smith’s lawyer. They viewed the case through the lens of free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a customized product could not be forced by the government to express a message that violates her religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court still keeps its most dramatic moments out of the public’s eye
From CNN's Dan Berman
Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022. Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images
When the Supreme Court gutted the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor took the time to read their opinion, celebration and dissent from the bench.
It was a dramatic moment in another momentous case on a politically and personally divisive issue, reflected in the justices' voices and written opinions.
Yet perhaps a few hundred people at most heard them because the Supreme Court didn’t allow them to be broadcast – another example of the opacity that’s become a hallmark of the court along with unclear ethics rules and murky financial disclosure processes.
Reading dissents from the bench is relatively rare and historically reserved for opinions on the biggest topics of the day and Supreme Court reporters and observers often speculate when it will be seen that justices are not only upset – but they want an audience present to hear the anger and disappointment.
For instance, Sotomayor, on the losing side of Thursday’s 6-3 decision, wrote a powerful dissent outlining her feeling that ignoring race in college admissions doesn’t make inequality disappear. From the bench, she said: “The devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated."
Thomas, only the second Black justice in the court’s history, has long opposed affirmative action, and read from his concurring opinion.
"While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law," Thomas’ opinion states.
People couldn’t hear Thomas’ voice, nor could they see Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – the first Black woman ever appointed to the court, looking straight ahead without any facial expression when Thomas spoke, a moment especially dramatic given how the two Black justices attacked one another in writing.
As CNN’s Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic previously wrote about the tradition of reading opinions and dissents from the bench:
History unfolds on these occasions, as when Sotomayor gave voice to her experience as the first Latina justice, or when Roberts decried a right to same-sex marriage while a swelling crowd outside the court cheered loudly. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wore a special collar, black with small jewel accents, over her robe for those times when she slowly but clearly read her dissent aloud.
These gripping moments of anger and frustration flesh out the robe-clad justices, usually loath to reveal themselves beyond their opinions. As much as the words, it’s the pitch of a voice and intensity of facial expressions, including what’s seen of fellow justices along the bench.
The forgiveness program promises to deliver up to $20,000 of debt relief for millions of borrowers. About 26 million people had already applied to the program by the time a judge struck it down last fall – prompting the government to stop taking applications. No debt has been canceled thus far.
The court, which has a conservative majority, already issued several crucial decisions this week, including an opinion Thursday that largely gutted affirmative action.
The Supreme Court is set to rule soon on a headline-grabbing case concerning President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program that will affect the finances of millions of Americans.
Critics, including the Republican-led states that have sued, say the initiative amounts to an unlawful attempt to erase an estimated $430 billion of federal student-loan debt under the guise of the pandemic.
The US Supreme Court is expected to hand down its opinion on the program after hearing oral arguments in the state-led case plus another brought by individual borrowers backed by a conservative group in February.
While most of the attention so far is focused on whether the Department of Education exceeded its authority in implementing the program, some court watchers are focused on an equally important procedural issue that is a major part of the case: whether the red states behind the challenge have the legal right, or “standing” to bring the dispute in the first place.
The court could rule to dismiss the challenges if they decide the plaintiffs do not have the "standing."
The concept of standing is one that requires a party to establish an actual or imminent injury to get into court. Simply disagreeing with a policy is not enough. In recent years, states from one party have felt increasingly emboldened to come to court to sue an administration from a different party over a controversial policy. For the Biden administration, the issue is of critical importance now, especially as Republican-led states feel they have an advantage with the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.
Professor Samuel Bray of Notre Dame Law School said it’s a problem for both Democratic and Republican administrations and he worries about states using the judicial branch to bring federal policymaking to a standstill.
Judges are meant to decide concrete disputes between parties, the thinking goes, and they should not engage in political or policy debates better left to the other branches of government.
Students make their way through the Sather Gate near Sproul Plaza on the University of California, Berkeley, campus in March 2022. Eric Risberg/AP
About 26 million people had already applied for President Joe Biden's federal student loan forgiveness program when a federal district court judge struck down the plan in early November last year.
The fate of the unprecedented debt cancellation program now lies with the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide by the end of this term to either uphold or strike down the proposal. No student loan debt has been canceled, despite the fact that the government approved 16 millionapplications eligible for relief last year.
A group of Republican-led states and other conservative groups took the Biden administration to court over the program, claiming that the executive branch does not have the power to so broadly cancel student debt in the proposed manner.
Critics also point out that the one-time student loan forgiveness program does nothing to address the cost of college for future students and could even lead to an increase in tuition.Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a bill to block the program. Both the Senate and the House passed the measure, but Biden vetoed the bill in early June.
The forgiveness program, which is estimated to cost about $400 billion, would fulfill Biden’s campaign promise to cancel some student loan debt and would delight progressives, as well as put some borrowers in a better financial position when the pause on payments and interest accrual expires later this year.
Most federal student loans have been frozen since March 2020 when a pause meant to protect borrowers struggling financially due to the Covid-19 pandemic went into place. Paymentswill be due starting in Octoberno matter how the Supreme Court rules on the one-time forgiveness program.
Who would be eligible for student loan forgiveness? The Biden administration has estimated that more than 40 million federal student loan borrowers would qualify for some level of debt cancellation, with roughly 20 million who would have their balance forgiven entirely, if the forgiveness program is allowed to move forward.
But not everyone with a federally held student loan would qualify. Individual borrowers who made less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 a year could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven. If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual could be eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness.
Federal student loans that are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders are not eligible unless the borrower applied to consolidate those loans into a Direct Loan by September 29, 2022.
Read more about Biden's student loan program here.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks on student loan debt relief at Delaware State University on Friday, October 21, 2022, in Dover, Delaware. Evan Vucci/AP
The White House is bracing for today’s Supreme Court’s ruling that will determine the fate of President Joe Biden’s student loan program.
Administration officials at the White House and Department of Education have been preparing behind the scenes for various outcomes for months. There have been contingency plan discussions within the administration centered on various policy options for borrowers and providing information on other administration programs meant to help borrowers, an administration official said.
The administration has been lobbied by progressive lawmakers over the past several months to develop a legal “plan B” should the relief program be struck down. Some of the lobbying has centered on the 1965 Higher Education Act as an alternative legal rationale for the program. But it remained unclear if the administration would consider that route, which would likely draw another court challenge. Some officials suggested there was little appetite for a drawn out legal battle.
If the court’s ruling allows the now-stalled program to move forward, the administration’s focus would turn to implementing the president’s student debt relief plan. Twenty-six million borrowers applied for the relief program last year, and 16 million applications were already approved. But discharging that relief has been on hold due to the legal challenges. The administration likely would soon start sending guidance to borrowers and service providers on next steps as well as trying to get the application website back up and running.
In March, Biden told CNN he’s “confident we’re on the right side of the law” but acknowledged he was “not confident of the outcome of the decision yet."
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona today would not detail what plans the administration has in place if the Supreme Court rules against the student debt relief program but told CNN's Phil Mattingly on CNN This Morning, “We’re prepared.”
“Right now, my focus is on the case we put forward,” Cardona said. “We’re prepared and it’s in our DNA at the Department of Education to fight for students and to fight for borrowers who right now need a little bit of support.”
Student loan borrowers and advocates gather for the People's Rally To Cancel Student Debt During The Supreme Court Hearings On Student Debt Relief on February 28, 2023 in Washington, DC. Jemal Countess/Getty Images for People's Rally to Cancel Student Debt
Friday marks the final day of the 2022-23 Supreme Court term, and momentous cases concerning student loan payments and LGBTQ rights will be released.
The rulings could lead to fiery opinions and dissents read from the bench, and they will come as the court finds itself in the center of a spotlight usually reserved for members of the political branches due to allegations that the justices are not transparent enough when it comes to their ethics disclosures, most recently with Justice Samuel Alito last week.
Here's what to know about the remaining cases to be decided:
Republican-led states and conservatives challenging the program say it amounts to an unlawful attempt to erase an estimated $430 billion of federal student loan debt under the guise of the pandemic.
At the heart of the case is the Department of Education’s authority to forgive the loans. Several of the conservative justices have signaled in recent years that agencies – with no direct accountability to the public – have become too powerful, upsetting the separation of powers.
They have moved to cut back on the so-called administrative state.
In court, Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as some other conservatives, seemed deeply skeptical of the Biden administration’s plan.
Can businesses deny services to LGBTQ customers? At the center of another case is a graphic designer, Lorie Smith, who seeks to expand her business and create custom websites to celebrate weddings – but does not want to work with gay couples out of religious objections to same-sex marriage.
Smith has not yet moved forward with her new business venture because of Colorado’s public accommodations law. Under the law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. Smith, whose company is called 303 Creative LLC, said that she is willing to work with all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, but she draws the line at creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriage because expressing such a message would be inconsistent with her beliefs.
The state and supporters of LGBTQ rights say that Smith is simply seeking a license to discriminate.
The conservatives on the court were sympathetic at oral arguments to those put forward by Smith’s lawyer. They viewed the case through the lens of free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a customized product could not be forced by the government to express a message that violates her religious beliefs.
Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022. Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images
When the Supreme Court gutted the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor took the time to read their opinion, celebration and dissent from the bench.
It was a dramatic moment in another momentous case on a politically and personally divisive issue, reflected in the justices' voices and written opinions.
Yet perhaps a few hundred people at most heard them because the Supreme Court didn’t allow them to be broadcast – another example of the opacity that’s become a hallmark of the court along with unclear ethics rules and murky financial disclosure processes.
Reading dissents from the bench is relatively rare and historically reserved for opinions on the biggest topics of the day and Supreme Court reporters and observers often speculate when it will be seen that justices are not only upset – but they want an audience present to hear the anger and disappointment.
For instance, Sotomayor, on the losing side of Thursday’s 6-3 decision, wrote a powerful dissent outlining her feeling that ignoring race in college admissions doesn’t make inequality disappear. From the bench, she said: “The devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated."
Thomas, only the second Black justice in the court’s history, has long opposed affirmative action, and read from his concurring opinion.
"While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law," Thomas’ opinion states.
People couldn’t hear Thomas’ voice, nor could they see Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – the first Black woman ever appointed to the court, looking straight ahead without any facial expression when Thomas spoke, a moment especially dramatic given how the two Black justices attacked one another in writing.
As CNN’s Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic previously wrote about the tradition of reading opinions and dissents from the bench:
History unfolds on these occasions, as when Sotomayor gave voice to her experience as the first Latina justice, or when Roberts decried a right to same-sex marriage while a swelling crowd outside the court cheered loudly. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wore a special collar, black with small jewel accents, over her robe for those times when she slowly but clearly read her dissent aloud.
These gripping moments of anger and frustration flesh out the robe-clad justices, usually loath to reveal themselves beyond their opinions. As much as the words, it’s the pitch of a voice and intensity of facial expressions, including what’s seen of fellow justices along the bench.
