In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court’s
conservative justices, numbering six, ruled that
President Joe Biden’s student
loan debt forgiveness plan was unconstitutional. The 6-3 decision, authored by
Chief Justice John Roberts, had far-reaching implications for the 26 million
Americans who had enrolled in the debt forgiveness program, as their hopes of
having their debts partially or fully wiped away were dashed.
President Biden had unveiled his plan to forgive up to
$20,000 in student loan debt for more than 40 million loan holders in August
2022. The plan aimed to provide $20,000 in relief to Pell Grant recipients and
$10,000 in relief to other borrowers with annual incomes below $125,000 in 2020
or 2021. To justify the forgiveness plan, Biden cited his authority under the
2003 HEROES Act, which had been passed in response to the 9/11 attacks,
allowing the modification or waiver of student loan debt terms during a
national emergency—specifically, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the Supreme Court justices disagreed with Biden’s
interpretation. Chief Justice Roberts, in his opinion supported by conservative
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy
Coney Barrett, stated that Biden lacked the authority under the HEROES Act to
eliminate student loan debt. Roberts argued that the Act empowered the
Secretary of Education to “waive or modify” existing provisions related
to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, but not to completely
overhaul the statute itself. According to Roberts, the term “modify”
allowed for minor adjustments or additions, not the creation of an entirely new
loan forgiveness program.
Roberts further contended that the modifications proposed by
Biden were not within the scope of the Act’s intended meaning. He argued that
they went beyond what could be considered “modest” or
“minor” changes, as his understanding of the term required. Instead,
the debt forgiveness program created by the President was deemed novel and
fundamentally different from the existing provisions.
Additionally, the ruling found the debt forgiveness plan to
be in violation of the court’s major questions doctrine. This doctrine enabled
the court to declare an executive branch policy unconstitutional if it was
deemed a “major” policy and lacked authorization from Congress.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent joined by liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor
and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the majority opinion for exceeding its
limited role in the governance of the nation. Kagan argued that the HEROES Act
explicitly empowered the Secretary of Education to provide relief to student
loan borrowers during a national emergency. The law allowed the secretary to
“waive or modify” any relevant provisions and replace them with new
terms and conditions. According to Kagan, the court’s interpretation
substituted its own judgment for that of Congress and the Executive Branch, effectively
making national policy on student loan forgiveness.
Kagan criticized the majority for focusing solely on the term
“modify” while disregarding the accompanying term “waive.”
She argued that the two words formed a couplet, with “waive” implying
complete elimination. In Kagan’s view, Congress would not have granted the
Secretary the power to entirely eliminate a requirement while allowing only
minor adjustments. She characterized the majority’s interpretation as
“insane” and warned that the major questions doctrine enabled the
court to arrogate the authority to make significant policy decisions, a role
she deemed improper for the judiciary in a democratic order.
Chief Justice Roberts, however, strongly disagreed with
Kagan’s perspective. He countered that the case revolved around the Executive
Branch usurping legislative power, rather than the court exceeding its bounds.
The disagreement between the two justices highlighted the ongoing debate over
the separation of powers and the limits of each branch of government.
In addition to the constitutional concerns, Justice Kagan
argued that the court should not have issued a decision in the case due to the
lack of standing by the state plaintiffs. She contended that they failed to
demonstrate any harm resulting from the debt relief plan and therefore lacked
the right to sue. However, the majority opinion granted standing to the state
of Missouri, which argued that the student loan debt servicer MOHELA would be
unable to make certain payments to state government coffers due to the relief
plan.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Biden
administration did not immediately present an alternative plan in case the
program was invalidated. However, the White House announced that President
Biden would address further actions to protect student loan borrowers in the
wake of the decision.
In a separate opinion on a challenge brought by two students,
the court dismissed the case on the grounds of lack of standing. This decision
further illustrated the complexity and multiple facets of the legal challenges
surrounding the student loan debt forgiveness plan.
