WASHINGTON 鈥 The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Joe Biden鈥檚 student loan forgiveness program, as a Missouri-created student loan agency helped six conservative-led states dash the hopes of millions of Americans hoping to be relieved of up to $20,000 of their debt.
In an 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Biden administration had gone too far in relieving up to 40 million Americans of some or all of their student loans, saying the plan went beyond the power Congress granted the Department of Education under a 9/11-era law that gave the administration the ability to change the student loan program in emergencies.
鈥淭oday, we have concluded that an instrumentality created by Missouri, governed by Missouri, and answerable to Missouri is indeed part of Missouri; that the words 鈥榳aive or modify鈥 do not mean 鈥榗ompletely rewrite鈥; and that our precedent 鈥 old and new 鈥 requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy,鈥 .
People are also reading…
The case was brought by six states, including Missouri, which claimed that the Biden administration had overstepped its authority by forgiving up to $10,000 in student loan debt and up to $20,000 in debt for Pell Grant recipients. Pell Grants are reserved for people from low-income families.
More than 16 million Americans, including 305,000 Missourians, had already been approved for loan forgiveness. When the Biden administration introduced the program, it was during a state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic.
In order to prove they had the right to sue, the states focused on Missouri鈥檚 state-affiliated student loan program, called the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, but better known as MOHELA.
Chesterfield-based MOHELA was created by the Missouri Legislature in 1981, but operates as an independent entity. Missouri law says the Legislature can鈥檛 be held liable for decisions made by the student loan servicer, but also uses money from MOHELA to fund scholarship programs in-state.
Lawyers for the states argued that Missouri was directly harmed by the Biden administration鈥檚 student loan forgiveness because it would potentially cut the agency鈥檚 operating revenue by around 40%, jeopardizing the funding for those scholarships.
The Biden administration argued that because it has the independent right to sue, Missouri can鈥檛 sue on its behalf. The conservative justices on the court disagreed.
鈥淭he Secretary鈥檚 plan harms MOHELA in the performance of its public function and so directly harms the State that created and controls MOHELA,鈥 Roberts wrote. 鈥淢issouri thus has suffered an injury in fact sufficient to give it standing to challenge the Secretary鈥檚 plan.鈥
Missouri joined the lawsuit under Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt, who was Missouri attorney general at the time. It was part of a wave of lawsuits Schmitt launched against the Biden administration, as it has become increasingly common for both Republican and Democratic state attorneys general to build political capital by suing a president of the opposing political party.
Schmitt immediately took credit on Twitter, saying that the Biden administration didn鈥檛 have the authority to wipe out billions in debt, part of a larger effort Schmitt has undertaken to pry power from the executive branch and give it to Congress.
鈥淛oe Biden鈥檚 student loan bailout was nothing more than a thinly veiled political ploy on a shaky foundation to score cheap points,鈥 Schmitt said in a longer statement. 鈥淭he bailout was inherently unfair to those who responsibly paid off their debt or those who chose not to take on debt, and the truck driver or the waitress shouldn鈥檛 have to subsidize the theater degree of the tenured professor.鈥
Missouri鈥檚 current attorney general, Republican Andrew Bailey, also claimed credit for the decision.
鈥淚鈥檓 proud to have led in the fight to halt Biden鈥檚 unconstitutional plan in its tracks and to protect everyday Americans from being saddled with the enormous cost of the plan,鈥 Bailey said.
The lawsuit was led by Nebraska, and was argued in court by Nebraska鈥檚 solicitor general, James Campbell.
In determining that Missouri was harmed by the loan program, the six conservative justices decided Congress had not given the Biden administration the express authority to forgive student debt when it passed a law called the HEROES Act in 2003, which gave the Department of Education the power to relieve hardship people may have from student loans in emergency situations.
The Biden administration had enacted the student loan forgiveness program under the state of emergency for COVID-19, which ended in May. Biden said in a statement Friday that he would have more to announce when it came to student loan debt and denounced Republicans for blocking his plan.
鈥淢y Administration鈥檚 student debt relief plan would have been the lifeline tens of millions of hardworking Americans needed as they try to recover from a once-in-a-century pandemic,鈥 Biden said. 鈥淣early 90 percent of the relief from our plan would have gone to borrowers making less than $75,000 a year, and none of it would have gone to people making more than $125,000. It would have been life-changing for millions of Americans and their families.鈥
The ruling puts an already unpopular court on the side of eliminating a program that would have helped millions of Americans financially. Groups in favor of eliminating student loan debt immediately called for Biden to find other means to eliminate student debt 鈥 though it is unlikely a divided Congress will be able to enact any such law before the presidential election in 2024.
It comes a day after the court declared race-based college admission policies unconstitutional, striking down more than 50 years worth of affirmative action programs.
Rep. Cori Bush, a St. 不良研究所导航网址 Democrat who supports adding justices to the Supreme Court, denounced the ruling and said Biden 鈥渕ust keep the promise he made to cancel student debt for over 40 million people by pursuing one of the several alternative paths at his disposal to deliver debt relief.鈥
In the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court had overstepped its authority in eliminating the program. Kagan argued that MOHELA should have brought the case instead of Missouri and that the HEROES Act gave the administration wide latitude when it came to handling debt in emergencies.
鈥淭he result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness,鈥 Kagan wrote. 鈥淐ongress authorized the forgiveness plan (among many other actions); the Secretary put it in place; and the President would have been accountable for its success or failure. But this Court today decides that some 40 million Americans will not receive the benefits the plan provides, because (so says the Court) that assistance is too 鈥榮ignifican[t].鈥欌
Roberts chided the liberal justices for indicating the court went beyond its authority, saying it has become common for people to claim the court overstepped when they disagree with an opinion.
鈥淲e do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement,鈥 Roberts said. 鈥淚t is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.鈥
Star reporters Jonathan Shorman and Kacen Bayless contributed reporting.