SCOTUS takes up Biden overreach
On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments over two court cases challenging President Joe Biden's attempt to unilaterally cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt.
To recap, last summer, Biden announced the U.S. Department of Education would be forgiving up to $20,000 of student loan debt per person, subject to certain qualifications, including income level and type of loan.
The president did not get congressional authority to do this, but rather invoked the 2003 HEROES Act, which was passed to allow the secretary of education to provide relief to student loan borrowers impacted by the wars raging at the time.
Since the law references a “national emergency” as a rationale for such relief, Biden is claiming the coronavirus pandemic is just such an emergency. Needless to say, politically and legally, there are reasons to be skeptical of Biden's action.
One of the cases at hand, brought by Republican-led state attorneys general, challenges the president's authority to terminate student loans in the manner in which he did. The other case is on behalf of two individual borrowers who did not qualify for student loan relief under Biden's plan.
According to Reuters, conservative justices “signaled skepticism over the legality of President Joe Biden's plan” in Tuesday's oral arguments.
Key to the outcome of the case is the “major questions doctrine,” which comes up in cases when agencies (in this case the Department of Education) decide something of great national significance. The absence of explicit congressional authorization is key to determining if an agency is exercising its authority appropriately.
“This is a case that presents extraordinarily serious, important issues about the role of Congress and about the role that we should exercise in scrutinizing that — significant enough that the major questions doctrine ought to be considered implicated?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
It is a simple fact that President Biden did not get explicit congressional authorization and, just months before an election, allowed his lawyers to conjure up a nonsensical justification for his action.