As the Supreme Court prepares to hear two challenges against the Biden administration's student loan relief plan, more than 20 organizations are gearing up to rally in defense of the policy on Tuesday.

President Joe Biden's plan, which aims to nix up to $20,000 in federal student loans for millions of borrowers, has been blocked since last fall by lower federal courts. Several challenges to the program have been dismissed, though two successfully caused the suspension of the program.

One challenge was brought by six Republican-led states that alleged the plan harms student loan service companies in their state and that the Education Department lacks authority to implement the policy. Another lawsuit brought by two borrowers claims the program was not broad enough to meet the eligibility requirements.

BIDEN STUDENT LOAN SUPREME COURT BATTLE REVIVES LEGAL TEST THAT DOOMED OBAMA CLIMATE RULES

The Biden administration has argued that neither party has the standing to sue or the ability to show actual harm or damages caused by the policy.

Here are five things to watch during this week at the high court:

Pro-loan forgiveness groups to rally at Supreme Court

As many as 20 organizations, including the NAACP, are planning a large rally outside the Supreme Court supporting the loan forgiveness plan.

One group known as WeThe45Million is expecting at least 100 people to gather outside the Supreme Court beginning Monday at 6 p.m. to stay overnight outside the building to gain entrance to the oral arguments session before the justices, which begins at around 10 a.m. Tuesday morning.

”We’ll be there to make sure that when they make these decisions — they will do so with the people most impacted by this — student loan borrowers — will be in front of them," Melissa Byrne, executive director of WeThe45Million, told the Washington Examiner.

Justices' remarks on 2003 HEROES Act

The Biden administration has argued the 2003 HEROES Act, which allows for student debt relief during national emergencies or wartime, is justified for implementing its debt relief program due to the financial hardships brought by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Former Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were pivotal in the 2003 law's passage have filed dueling amicus briefs both for and against the use of the HEROES Act to justify the loan forgiveness plan.

Justices are likely to ask the Justice Department and attorneys arguing against the loan forgiveness about whether the 2003 law covers Biden's plan, which is estimated to cost as much as $440 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

More opinion(s) from cases from this term

On top of the pivotal student debt case, the Supreme Court is slated to return at least one and possibly additional rulings from cases argued earlier this term.

The Supreme Court has yet to release a number of decisions from high-profile cases argued at the start of the October term, including a copyright case involving the Andy Warhol Foundation, the fate of affirmative action, or whether a Christian web designer can decline her services to same-sex couples seeking a custom wedding webpage.

Justices consider standard for aggravated identity theft

Ahead of major arguments over Biden's loan plan, justices will hear Dubin v. United States on Monday, a case considering the legal standard to prove aggravated identity theft.

When physiological center executive David Dubin allegedly overbilled Medicaid by $92 for psychological testing performed on a young patient in a Texas emergency shelter, a federal prosecutor charged Dubin with healthcare fraud, and lower courts subsequently convicted him of aggravated identity theft.

Dubin argues he should be cleared of the identity theft charge because the statute requires a connection to the underlying crime, maintaining that writing his patient's name was merely "incidental."

Blue state dispute over 20th-century compact

Finishing off the Supreme Court's week on Wednesday is a case between two states, New York v. New Jersey.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The case surrounds New Jersey's attempt to withdraw from the 1953 Waterfront Commission Compact, which was signed to address organized crime at the Port of New York and New Jersey.

New York filed the initial action to the Supreme Court, asking the justices whether New Jersey can unilaterally withdraw from the decades-old compact.