Activists hold a student loan forgiveness rally near the White House on April 27, 2022.
Anna Moneymaker | News from Getty Images | Getty Images
Despite calling President Joe Biden’s student-loan levy plan “unlawful,” two university law professors are urging the Supreme Court to dismiss legal challenges to it.
“The existing theories that have been thrown against the wall in these cases are wrong, and many of them would have dangerous implications,” he wrote William BaudeLaw Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Samuel BrayProfessor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, in an Amici Curiae letter filed Wednesday with the nation’s highest court.
An amicus or amici curiae letter allows individuals or organizations who are not parties to the case to offer their information or expertise.
Biden announced in August that tens of millions of Americans would be eligible for educational debt forgiveness — up to $20,000 if they receive a Pell Grant, a type of grant for low-income families, while they are in college, and up to $10,000 if they don’t.
Since then, Republican and conservative groups have filed at least six lawsuits to try to end the policy, arguing that the president does not have the authority to cancel consumer debt without Congressional approval and that the policy is harmful.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two of those challenges.
More from Personal Finance:
What the proposed non-competition clause means for you
3 key steps you need to take before tax filing season 2023 begins
House Republicans vote to scrap IRS funding after pledged to set aside $80 billion
In their brief, Baude and Bray address the issue of so-called standing. The law professors say she is set to be the party most affected by a policy that puts her on trial.
In their lawsuit challenging the president’s plan in the Supreme Court, six GOP-led states argue that companies in their states that service federal student loans, particularly the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), would lose profits due to federal student loan forgiveness. But the law professors say that in this case, MOHELA should have brought the legal challenge, not the states. The other states in the lawsuit are Nebraska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina.
“Missouri is not the right party to seek compensation for MOHELA’s lost loan servicing fees,” Baude and Bray wrote.
“Whether using modern doctrine or more classical terminology, the federal courts have the authority to grant the remedy sought only if it is sought by the proper plaintiffs,” they wrote.
The legal challenges follow a trend that Baude and Bray find worrying, in which states are too easily allowed to challenge a federal measure they disagree with.
When judges side with the states and overlook their shaky legal standing, the professors risk the Supreme Court “constantly adjudicating every major act of the executive branch — which is not its constitutional role.”
More than 10 more Amici Curiae briefs were filed with the Supreme Court in support of the President’s loan forgiveness plan.
A former US official from California, George Miller, filed one of these defenses, arguing that the Heroes Act of 2003 allows the Biden administration to carry out its plan. miller was a co-sponsor this legislation.
“The Heroes Act gives the Secretary of Education the authority to ‘waive or amend any statutory or regulatory provision’ relating to state student loan programs ‘if the Secretary deems it necessary in connection with a … national emergency,'” Miller wrote in his amicus curiae letter. The country operated andnder an emergency declaration due to Covid since March 2020.
The Biden administration has cited the Heroes Act of 2003 as the law giving it permission to carry out its loan forgiveness plan, saying that the public health crisis has caused significant financial damage to student loan borrowers and that it Debt relief is necessary to stave off a historic rise in arrears and defaults.
More than 20 attorney generals argue her short that “the relief offered to borrowers falls squarely within the authority that Congress has given the Secretary to address such emergencies.”
“The Secretary’s actions here are appropriately calibrated to ensure that borrowers who have been hardest hit during the pandemic do not unnecessarily default on their student loans and suffer the associated cascade of economic damage,” the attorney general wrote.
The judges will hear the case on February 28th.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/professors-urge-supreme-court-to-reject-student-loan-forgiveness-lawsuit.html Professors are asking the Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit for student loan forgiveness