When the history of millennials is written, one of the key events will likely be the scene at the Supreme Court on the morning of Feb. 28.
Student loans, so often described as a defining feature of, and burden to, the millennial generation, were on the docket for the high court that day, with 40 million debtors and at least $400 billion in taxpayer funds hanging in the balance.
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ACCUSED OF CREATING 'GAG POLICY' FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
While the court famously refuses to allow cameras or even cellphones inside its chambers, outside was a carnival atmosphere. Loan forgiveness advocates began arriving the night before, some bused in from as far away as Florida, for a raucous rally.
Flyers circulated around Washington Metro stations in the weeks beforehand advertising an all-night party to "fight back against Republicans and billionaires trying to block student debt relief." Supporters even planned to camp out beyond the court's columns to score tickets for the hearing. Bullhorns, doughnuts, bright yellow beanies, and backslaps were all abundant outside the building.
Inside, by contrast, the atmosphere was decidedly staid. The court's anachronistic rules require coats and ties for men and business attire for women, with muted blues and grays dominating. No talking or standing is allowed once arguments begin, nor are electronic devices of any kind permitted.
The stakes for this particular case were high for all parties involved. President Joe Biden announced last August he would "cancel" up to $20,000 in student loan debt for borrowers with incomes below $125,000, delivering on a campaign promise and upsetting Republicans in the process.
But he relied on a legally dubious premise to do so, at least according to critics. The Biden administration cited the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, created in 2003 with Iraq War veterans in mind, to cancel loans aggregating half a trillion dollars or more.
The act authorizes the secretary of education to "waive or modify" provisions of federal student loan programs if there's a "national emergency" declared by the president.
That emergency? The coronavirus pandemic, which per the Biden White House remains in effect until May.
Republicans and conservatives quickly filed more than a half-dozen lawsuits arguing that the bill in no way authorized transferring such colossal amounts of taxpayer money.
The conservative-leaning justices appeared to share that sentiment.
"'Modify,' in our view, connotes moderate change," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "It might be good English to say that the French Revolution 'modified' the status of the French nobility — but only because there is a figure of speech called understatement and a literary device known as sarcasm."
The remarks drew a laugh from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of three of former President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominees on the nine-member panel and among six overall chosen by Republican presidents.
Kavanaugh got in on the act, too, arguing that some of the high court's "finest moments" were the times it blocked emergency powers abuse by presidents.
The Supreme Court has done that lately, striking down the Biden administration's eviction moratorium and its private employer vaccine mandate, while lower courts nixed the federal mask mandate and Biden's attempts to end the Title 42 southern border policy. All of them were pandemic-related, and all were losses for the Biden White House.
Some even predicted that Biden could lose the student loans case 9-0, the executive overreach being so egregious that no justice could stomach it.
But that doesn't seem likely, given the course of the arguments. Democratic-appointed justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all expressed strong skepticism of the program's challengers. Jackson, at one point, gave a confused stare to J. Michael Connolly, the lawyer arguing one of the anti-forgiveness cases, as he attempted to answer one of her questions.
All three trained their fire on whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. Notably, they were joined at times by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sounded her own skepticism. Arguing for the Biden administration, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the plaintiffs were taking a "Rube Goldberg" path to standing.
The other sticking point for the liberal justices was why the term "waive" shouldn't mean the education secretary can cancel loans. Even Kavanaugh asked why the word shouldn't be interpreted that way.
However, the HEROES Act also stipulates that loanees "are not placed in a worse financial position financially," came the counterargument, and writing off up to $20,000 each would put them in a much better position.
The court will rule this summer on whether the forgiveness program goes through and could deliver a big blow to Biden in the process.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Even so, the scene outside showcased how Biden could still win another way. Energy was high for the rally, and it featured such liberal lights as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), plus "Squad" Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Cori Bush (D-MO), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), along with freshman Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL), at 26 the first Generation Z member of Congress, currently the Hill's youngest lawmaker.
Should the White House lose, all of these Democrats can point the finger of blame at Republicans in Congress and conservatives on the court to fire up their young voting base in 2024.