Missouri files a petition to show that the national authorities are aware of President Joe Biden’s tendency to resign student loans.
Like Biden’s effort to establish an eviction moratorium and a vaccination mandate, and his efforts to alter the composition of the world’s population and its energy source, Biden’s multibillion- money” Saving on a Valuable Education” ( SAVE ) Plan evidences his inclination to work as if the White House were a rival government opposed to the U. S. Congress.
He insists on imposing his political interests on the country by reading stale Old Law parts to back up enormous discretionary power that his forebears in the Oval Office did not recognize.  ,
The SAVE Plan, another component in Biden’s colorful job of eliminating student debt, redefines normal notions like “loans” and “debt” by reimagining them as synonymous with originally different concepts like “grant” or “gift”.
The idea of Missouri’s event and the almost identical case filed by Kansas less than two weeks ago is that the president does not have the power to do so. 18 states have joined one or the other lawsuits to stop the Biden administration from carrying out the SAVE Plan overall.  ,  ,
How does SAVE accomplish its bold reversal of formerly accepted business terms? primarily by altering the terms used to make student loans payable to those with income-driven repayment plans.
In the Higher Education Act, Congress provided a limited set of circumstances for the secretary of education to revoke student loans, such as when the borrower has worked for the government for a while, had a permanent disability, or had passed away. These sporadic loans that are forgiving are not the foundation of SAVE. Instead, the administration concentrates on a distinct set of initiatives that allow borrowers to repay their student loans over time and in increments that reflect the borrower’s limited income.  ,
Additionally, Congress established restrictions on the length of repayment plans, the types of borrowers who qualify, and the amount of income borrowers must contribute to their student loans. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona believes that despite Congress ‘ attention to the specifics, the Higher Education Act grants him virtually unlimited authority to improve these congressional qualifications by varying them downward.  ,  ,
The secretary has changed the process for figuring out discretionary income that a borrower must pay under the new Department of Education rule. The secretary has now set discretionary income at 225 %, up from the 150 % of the previously defined federal poverty guideline, which was previously considered to be 150 %. The amount of discretionary income that borrowers will be required to pay each month toward their loans was then reduced from 10 %, as Congress had mandated, to 5 %.
The state cases summarize the financial effects:” the typical undergraduate borrower repays less than what they took out: only$ 6, 121 for every$ 10, 000 borrowed”, and” 4.3 million out of 7.8 million borrowers under the income- driven repayment plan from the Final Rule have a monthly payment of$ 0 on their loans”.
In all, the Penn- Wharton Budget Model estimates the SAVE Plan would cost$ 475 billion over 10 years. For comparison, Penn- Wharton estimated the costs for the previous plan the Supreme Court struck down at$ 469 billion to$ 519 billion over 10 years.
Some, no doubt, are wondering why the president even gets another bite at the student- loan apple. Was n’t the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Biden’s suit the center of the controversy that the Supreme Court decided against him just last year? Remember that the president invoked an emergency statute and the waning COVID-19 pandemic to cancel loans in Biden v. Nebraska. Therefore, the decision primarily dealt with that statute, the HEROES Act, and only subtly addressed presidential authority under the Higher Education Act.
Despite the administration’s distinct statutory foundation, Biden v. Nebraska will remain relevant in determining the outcome in these cases. However, the administration’s objectives and justifications remain unchanged. There, as here, the secretary of education unlawfully claimed authority” to rewrite]the Higher Education Act ] from the ground up” to create ,” a novel and fundamentally different loan- forgiveness program”.
There, as here, the” secretary’s assertion of administrative authority has’ conveniently enabled ]him ] to enact a program’ that Congress has chosen not to enact itself”. The secretary asserts “virtually unlimited power to rewrite the Education Act” in this regard, stating that he “may unilaterally define every aspect of federal student financial aid.”
These are just some of the relevant similarities. Yes, the laws, the Higher Education Act and HEROES Act, are different in verbiage and in structure. But , it is far from clear that these differences place the administration’s plans on firmer legal footing.
Consider the secretary to be correct when he claims that the Higher Education Act gives him some authority to alter a borrower’s loan-repayment plan’s parameters. When read in the statutory context, the SAVE Plan still presents an obstacle.
According to the states, the Higher Education Act made loans and grants distinct from one another, according to the legislation’s separate sections. The secretary asserts an unconstrained power to turn money from loans into grants funded by the government by ensuring that the majority of the borrowers will pay significantly less than what they borrowed.
How plausible is it that Congress granted the executive branch the freedom to innovate as the political convenience of the moment lacked?
The principle that underlies the secretary of education’s assertion would raise significant political concerns and constitutional doubts even if it were carried out on a smaller scale. The secretary’s action bears the hallmarks of what the Supreme Court has termed a “major question” when he uses his interpretive authority to impose on Americans a debt that many Americans bear no responsibility. And no executive branch member is permitted to resolve disputes without getting acquiescence from the Congress.  ,  ,
President Andrew Jackson opocryphally declared,” Chair Justice, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” following a notable Supreme Court loss. After his own Supreme Court defeat in Biden v. Nebraska, the president gave a pale, geriatric imitation of Jacksonian defiance:” The Supreme Court blocked it, but that did n’t stop me”.
In the SAVE Plan, as in his other student- loan giveaways, Biden evokes democracy’s most ancient demon: wealth redistribution. He declares the multibillion-dollar beast to be lawful and parades it out in brand-new statutory attire.
However, Biden is not a Jacksonian populist; instead, he is not the driving force behind SAVE, and his revised plan, in spite of its new statutory makeup, does not appear to be any more lawful than the original. Rather, unilateral student debt cancellation has long been the project of America’s most elite private universities and its toniest ZIP , codes.
In making another dubiously legal bid at student- debt erasure, Biden is not responding to the cries of the needy, but to the howls of those partisans who expect to be the leftist , movement’s leaders in the not- too- distant future.  ,  ,  ,
