![]() ![]() The oral arguments have concluded and the fate of student debt relief now rests in the hands of the nine justices. People in favor of President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Washington, D.C., as the court hears the Department of Education v. In the American Rescue Plan passed during the pandemic, Prelogar argued, the law “specifically anticipated and sought to facilitate a program of loan discharge by providing that it wouldn’t be subject to federal taxation from 2021 to 2025.” What comes next? Prelogar argued Congress could have amended the HEROES Act if it wanted, and that lawmakers even showed some support for the action. “The fact that it hasn’t acted under the major questions doctrine but has considered the matter we cited as support for the notion that maybe it should be one for Congress,” Roberts said. The conservative justices seemed wary that Biden’s plan could encroach on the separation of powers the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold. “And if the Court overrides that clear HEROES Act language here, I think that it could only thwart Congress’s intent in this particular posture of ensuring that you have the tools, the Secretary has the tools he needs to take care of Americans in a - a national emergency situation,” she told Roberts. Prelogar spent much of the time insisting to the justices that Congress knew there was a possibility that HEROES Act could be used to forgive student debt relief. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on behalf of the Biden administration, insisted that Congress was aware of the possibility of a student debt relief initiative. It’s not the amount of money the question is what’s Congress’s intent?” Biden administration insists Congress foresaw debt relief in passing HEROES Act “It’s an outrageous sum, and yet no one is disputing that. “The forbearance of pay is $5 billion a month or something like that?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. Nebraska, focused on if states have the right to sue over the potential financial harm the program could cause to the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri (MOHELA), a loan servicer. One of the more surprising moments from the arguments came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by former President Trump, questioning, alongside the liberal justices, the legal standing of the six Republican-led states challenging the relief.Ī good portion of the first case, Biden v. Here are the top takeaways from Tuesday’s arguments: Barrett joins liberals in questioning states’ legal standingīarrett joined the liberal justices in arguing the legal standing of the Republican states challenging the student loan forgiveness program. The questioning from the justices highlighted the split between the liberal and conservative sides of the court, casting doubt that the plan, a major campaign promise for Biden, will be able to succeed. ![]() The main focus in both cases was the standing of the challengers, meaning their legal right to sue, and the scope of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |