The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Feb. 28 in two cases to decide the fate of President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program.

A group of six Republican-led states and, separately, two student loan borrowers have sued to block the estimated $440 billion program, which the Biden administration has contended is legal under the 2003 federal HEROES Act, allowing for student debt relief during national emergencies or wartime.

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who was appointed by Biden in 2021, is leading the charge of implementing the loan forgiveness program. He contends that the economic hardships created by COVID-19 pandemic provides ample justification to forgive as much as $20,000 in loan debt for up to 16 million borrowers, which is the number of applicants who signed up for the program before lower courts halted the plan.

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

(AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

“We remain confident in our legal authority to adopt this program that will ensure the financial harms caused by the pandemic don’t drive borrowers into delinquency and default,” Cardona said in a statement in January.

But judicial experts are torn on whether the program is truly legal. One school of thought suggests the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the high court has had a track record of limiting the powers of government agencies, while some experts contend that the states and individuals challenging the plan lack the legal standing or justification to show a concrete harm or injury as a result of the policy.

Here are the key figures who will be before the nine justices on Tuesday in two challenges against the loan forgiveness program:

Biden v. Nebraska

In September, Nebraska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and South Carolina sued to block the loan forgiveness program from taking effect. The states argued the program harms student loan service companies in their state and that the Education Department lacks authority to implement the policy.

DOJ

Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is defending the forgiveness plan, argues the states lack standing to bring their challenge and that loan default rates will rise if the justices rule against the administration.

“The Secretary determined, and respondents have not seriously disputed, that ending that pause without providing some additional relief for lower-income borrowers would cause delinquency and default rates to spike above prepandemic levels,” Prelogar wrote in an amicus brief.

Prelogar has served her role since 2021 and has argued numerous cases on behalf of the government since 2014, when she was an assistant to the solicitor general.

Nebraska Solicitor General James A. Campbell will be arguing against the program on Tuesday. While many groups that sued against it were stopped in lower courts due to a lack of standing, the GOP-led states managed to obtain a preliminary injunction by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

“The Program places an estimated 43 million borrowers in a better position by eliminating all loan balances for 20 million and erasing up to $20,000 for over 20 million more,” Campbell wrote in the states’ brief. “This vastly exceeds the Secretary’s authority under the Act, and the Court should affirm the Eighth Circuit’s decision to enjoin the Program."

Department of Education v. Brown

The second case to be argued Tuesday surrounds a pair of student loan borrowers, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who did not meet the eligibility requirements to sign up for the program.

Brown is not eligible for the forgiveness because her loans are maintained by commercial entities rather than the Education Department, while Taylor is eligible for the $10,000 in relief but not the $20,000 offered to Pell Grant recipients, which is typically provided to lower-income borrowers.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined the government's request to overrule a district court judge that paused the program, prompting Prelogar to request that the Supreme Court take up the borrowers' case alongside the Nebraska case for oral arguments.

"And considering this case along with Nebraska would allow the Court to consider the full range of challenges to the plan at once," Prelogar told the Supreme Court in December.

Representing the plaintiffs is J. Michael Connolly, an attorney from boutique law firm Consovoy McCarthy who has largely spent his career working behind the scenes on Supreme Court cases but will make his debut before the justices on Tuesday.

Connolly is responsible for finding the plaintiffs in this case, determining their litigation strategy, and helping them along the way in lower courts, partner Thomas R. McCarthy told Bloomberg Law.

Additionally, Connolly was a pivotal figure for a successful amicus effort last term that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate climate change in West Virginia v. EPA.

The conservative Job Creators Network Foundation filed one of the first lawsuits challenging the loan forgiveness program and are bankrolling the two borrowers in the Brown case.

Some legal experts have hypothesized that the conservative supermajority could scrutinize the program under the so-called major questions doctrine, the same legal doctrine that quashed the Obama administration's landmark power plant emissions rule in the EPA case.

While critics to Biden's plan say the justices could apply similar scrutiny as they did to the EPA rules, other legal experts have speculated the justices may see a distinction between the student loans case and prior rulings that limited executive authority.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Both cases on Tuesday are billed for a one-hour argument, though the complexity of the disputes could lead the arguments to run longer.

A final decision on the legality of Biden's loan forgiveness policy is expected by the summer. If the court decides against moving forward with the debt relief program, loan payments are expected to resume by the end of August.