Not Tired of Winning Yet CLXVII
The Supreme Court has ruled Biden’s $430 billion student loan ‘forgiveness’ plan unconstitutional.
The cases are Department of Education v. Brown, United States Supreme Court No. No. 22–535, and Biden v. Nebraska, United States Supreme Court No. 22–506.
In the first, the High Court unanimously (and, in my humble opinion, correctly) held that the plaintiffs, who were not eligible for Biden’s student loan relief, lacked standing to sue because they could not show that they had been harmed directly by it.
In the second, the vote once again was six to three, with the six Republican appointed justices voting for the Constitution and the three Leftists voting against.
The dissent, in effect, would remove the lawmaking power of congress from congress and award it to the Secretary of Education, which in this case did not even abide by its own rules and procedures of public comment, and so on, before issuing an administrative fiat.
Let us give thanks to heaven that the unjust judges, finally, are in the minority.
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Education Act) governs federal financial aid mechanisms, including student loans. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or reduce loans in certain limited circumstances. The Secretary may forgive the loans of borrowers who have died or become permanently and totally disabled, or who are bankrupt; and borrowers whose schools falsely certify them, close down, or fail to pay lenders.
The issue presented in this case is whether the Secretary has authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to depart from the existing provisions of the Education Act and establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to waive or modify any such provision of Title IV he deems necessary during with a war or national emergency, in order to ensure students borrowers are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of the national emergency.
The Biden Administration argued that the Wu-Han flu lockdowns imposed by the Biden Administration, perhaps for reasons which do not bear close scrutiny, constitutes such a national emergency. Also, bribing young voters for their votes perhaps constitutes an emergency for the Biden gang.
Roberts penned the majority opinion for Biden v. Nebraska. The ruling of the Court was this, and I quote:
The text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program.
Myself, I am not sure more legal analysis is needed. Roberts quotes Speaker of the House Emeritus Nancy Pelosi:
“People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”
To my surprise, there is a worthwhile dissent, penned by Justice Kagan, and the legal arguments made are legal arguments: The dissent argues, not without some merit, that there is no jurisdiction for the High Court if there is no showing of an actual injury, and that the wording of the statute does indeed grant plenipotentiary powers to the Secretary of Treasury under such circumstances.
The argument is one I do not find convincing, but at least it is a serious argument.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
