Will Student Loan forgiveness stand? Nope.

[MillennialModerate]

Will it stand? My fear is it will be overturned by a judge.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, because of the way that Biden did it. If it was through executive order it probably wouldn’t stand.

[MillennialModerate]

How did he do it? I thought he did do it through executive order

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Judges won't take any action on it before the Midterms and then if Rs net the H they might overturn it, but if the Ds net the TRIFECTA then they can put it they law

That's why Pelosi desperately wants to hold onto Speakers gavel so the Student Loans Discharge won't be overturned without Congressional Action

[brucejoel99]

Will it stand? My fear is it will be overturned by a judge.

Who has standing to challenge the plan to begin with, not least in light of what the conservative Court thinks re: standing?

How did he do it? I thought he did do it through executive order

Using the EdSec's power under the HEROES Act of 2003 to grant relief from SL requirements to address a nat'l emergency.

[DaleCooper]

Will it stand? My fear is it will be overturned by a judge.

Who has standing to challenge the plan to begin with, not least in light of what the conservative Court thinks re: standing?

How did he do it? I thought he did do it through executive order

Using the EdSec's power under the HEROES Act of 2003 to grant relief from SL requirements to address a nat'l emergency.

I've read a couple of other things recently that seem to indicate that Biden has at least as much standing, if not more, under earlier legislation dating back to the 60s that gives the executive branch broad power to waive federal student loans.

[Orser67]

It'll probably be fine, but you never know what the Supreme Court will or won't do. Back in 2010, many people thought conservative challenges to Obamacare were long shots, but the law only barely survived.

[It’s so Joever]

If the SCOTUS wants to try and stop it…I encourage them to, see how that works.

[Gass3268]

Politically if it gets reversed, it only helps Biden and the Democrats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If the SCOTUS wants to try and stop it…I encourage them to, see how that works.

They're gonna wait for the Midterms if Rs get the H it's can be reversed because Congress won't be able to put it into law they are gonna wait til after Midterms

If it does get reverse D's are gonna say elect a D Trifecta in 24 to put it into law the Rs are gonna have like the same majority as the D's that can be overturned in the next EDay , should they get the H and that is questionable , Biden is getting close to 50 this war in Ukraine drug down his Approvals because NATO isn't involved

Biden was at 50 percent before the War started and his polls plunged it's just now getting back to 50, white voters have anxiety over the war still , Blk and LATINOS don't care but we're not 66 percent of the population

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Will it stand? My fear is it will be overturned by a judge.

Who has standing to challenge the plan to begin with, not least in light of what the conservative Court thinks re: standing?

The student loan servicing companies are the most obvious answer although I doubt any will because that's basically asking for their contract to not be renewed.

A more likely candidate might be the banks that still collect interest on pre-2010 loans although at this point that may not be enough to be worth it for such a suit especially if that also makes future federal contracts unlikely.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I mean, what he did was definitely consistent with what the laws passed by Congress allow, so the only legal argument against it would be that those laws are unconstitutional themselves. I can't say that there aren't any justices who might push that reasoning, but I have doubts that even this reactionary court would go quite that far as a majority.

[sting in the rafters]

If Tom Brady, Hov, Yeezy, and Diddy all got their PPP loans forgiven for their ill-advised business ventures then why the phuck don't I get something for signing the predatory ironclad student loan agreement damn near necessary to enter the professional workforce and become a homeowner before my first gray hair?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Tom Brady, Hov, Yeezy, and Diddy all got their PPP loans forgiven for their ill-advised business ventures then why the phuck don't I get something for signing the predatory ironclad student loan agreement damn near necessary to enter the professional workforce and become a homeowner before my first gray hair?

That's a moral argument, not a legal one.

As said though I expect it to stand simply because the group of possible plaintiffs with standing while not non-existent is small and probably doesn't include anyone who wants to rock the boat.

[sting in the rafters]

If Tom Brady, Hov, Yeezy, and Diddy all got their PPP loans forgiven for their ill-advised business ventures then why the phuck don't I get something for signing the predatory ironclad student loan agreement damn near necessary to enter the professional workforce and become a homeowner before my first gray hair?

That's a moral argument, not a legal one.

As said though I expect it to stand simply because the group of possible plaintiffs with standing while not non-existent is small and probably doesn't include anyone who wants to rock the boat.

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the federal government possess the power to discharge PPP loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to legal properties and not student loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to individuals?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Tom Brady, Hov, Yeezy, and Diddy all got their PPP loans forgiven for their ill-advised business ventures then why the phuck don't I get something for signing the predatory ironclad student loan agreement damn near necessary to enter the professional workforce and become a homeowner before my first gray hair?

That's a moral argument, not a legal one.

As said though I expect it to stand simply because the group of possible plaintiffs with standing while not non-existent is small and probably doesn't include anyone who wants to rock the boat.

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the federal government possess the power to discharge PPP loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to legal properties and not student loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to individuals?

Different laws establishing both programs. I'm not saying that the government doesn't have the authority to discharge student loans as such and I haven't read the law in depth but the authority for each here would be established separately. That said another difference is I can't think of anyone with standing to sue against forgiving PPP loans. There are a few who exist for student loans even if they're unlikely to do so for reasons established above.

[pbrower2a]

Yes -- and I see a tendency for America to heavily subsidize college education as it once did. When I was in college back in the 1970's college cost about as much as a car (which really didn't help one get a college education) or a modestly-expensive hobby. It was affordable, and because one was not obliged to take on a full-time job to keep one's student loan from bloating one could enjoy some of the side-benefits that enriched one's life forever (like foreign films, classical concerts, and the like).

Could it be that again? Good question. Why have college costs so bloated? Is it a corporate model of creating as big a bureaucracy as possible?

Arcane research? The University of California did much of its research in sciences (atomic and other physics and chemistry) on government contracts that paid for that. Much could be said for some other universities.    

The small-scale private, usually church-related liberal-arts college was often rather inexpensive, which was good for turning out preachers (and for most Protestant denominations) preachers' wives in a terribly underpaid, but highly-useful profession. Who else is going to visit you in the nursing home than the clergy? If you are in a nursing home for liver disease, then it certainly won't be your old drinking buddies. You would be surprised to find that members of your old fraternal lodge and your co-workers won't. These colleges also supplied large numbers of schoolteachers. One need not be a great brain to be a good schoolteacher, but having a broad base of liberal education (with some necessary course in pedagogy) is essential.  

We need more clergy and fewer used-car salesmen. The high costs of college ensure that many college graduates must take roles as hucksters just to pay off the bills.

I say this as an irreligious person.  

[sting in the rafters]

If Tom Brady, Hov, Yeezy, and Diddy all got their PPP loans forgiven for their ill-advised business ventures then why the phuck don't I get something for signing the predatory ironclad student loan agreement damn near necessary to enter the professional workforce and become a homeowner before my first gray hair?

That's a moral argument, not a legal one.

As said though I expect it to stand simply because the group of possible plaintiffs with standing while not non-existent is small and probably doesn't include anyone who wants to rock the boat.

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the federal government possess the power to discharge PPP loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to legal properties and not student loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to individuals?

Different laws establishing both programs. I'm not saying that the government doesn't have the authority to discharge student loans as such and I haven't read the law in depth but the authority for each here would be established separately. That said another difference is I can't think of anyone with standing to sue against forgiving PPP loans. There are a few who exist for student loans even if they're unlikely to do so for reasons established above.

Right but why wouldn't the same legal principle of executive discretion in appropriating federal funds apply?

[Orser67]

If Tom Brady, Hov, Yeezy, and Diddy all got their PPP loans forgiven for their ill-advised business ventures then why the phuck don't I get something for signing the predatory ironclad student loan agreement damn near necessary to enter the professional workforce and become a homeowner before my first gray hair?

That's a moral argument, not a legal one.

As said though I expect it to stand simply because the group of possible plaintiffs with standing while not non-existent is small and probably doesn't include anyone who wants to rock the boat.

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the federal government possess the power to discharge PPP loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to legal properties and not student loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to individuals?

Different laws establishing both programs. I'm not saying that the government doesn't have the authority to discharge student loans as such and I haven't read the law in depth but the authority for each here would be established separately. That said another difference is I can't think of anyone with standing to sue against forgiving PPP loans. There are a few who exist for student loans even if they're unlikely to do so for reasons established above.

Right but why wouldn't the same legal principle of executive discretion in appropriating federal funds apply?

It's not just about executive discretion, but also about what Congress specifically provides for through law. There's a famous concurring opinion from Justice Robert H. Jackson that is often discussed in law school as a good description of the president's powers:

First, “[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). Second, “[w]hen the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.” Id., at 637. In such a circumstance, Presidential authority can derive support from “congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence.” Ibid. Finally, “[w]hen the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb,” and the Court can sustain his actions “only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637–638.

For the PPP, I assume that the same law that authorized the program also specifically authorized loan forgiveness. For student loans, Congress never passed any law specifically authorizing the president to forgive loans in the context of COVID. The Biden administration has cited the HEROES Act as authorization for loan forgiveness, but some legal scholars have argued that the law is a flimsy pretext to go on, in part because it was passed in a very different context (some legal scholars have argued that he should've cited the Higher Education Act of 1965 instead). In other words, the PPP loan forgiveness program is clearly in the first zone of authority that Jackson talks about, whereas student loan forgiveness arguably isn't.

[sting in the rafters]

If Tom Brady, Hov, Yeezy, and Diddy all got their PPP loans forgiven for their ill-advised business ventures then why the phuck don't I get something for signing the predatory ironclad student loan agreement damn near necessary to enter the professional workforce and become a homeowner before my first gray hair?

That's a moral argument, not a legal one.

As said though I expect it to stand simply because the group of possible plaintiffs with standing while not non-existent is small and probably doesn't include anyone who wants to rock the boat.

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the federal government possess the power to discharge PPP loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to legal properties and not student loans serviced via 3rd-party lenders to individuals?

Different laws establishing both programs. I'm not saying that the government doesn't have the authority to discharge student loans as such and I haven't read the law in depth but the authority for each here would be established separately. That said another difference is I can't think of anyone with standing to sue against forgiving PPP loans. There are a few who exist for student loans even if they're unlikely to do so for reasons established above.

Right but why wouldn't the same legal principle of executive discretion in appropriating federal funds apply?

It's not just about executive discretion, but also about what Congress specifically provides for through law. There's a famous concurring opinion from Justice Robert H. Jackson that is often discussed in law school as a good description of the president's powers:

First, “[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). Second, “[w]hen the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.” Id., at 637. In such a circumstance, Presidential authority can derive support from “congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence.” Ibid. Finally, “[w]hen the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb,” and the Court can sustain his actions “only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637–638.

For the PPP, I assume that the same law that authorized the program also specifically authorized loan forgiveness. For student loans, Congress never passed any law specifically authorizing the president to forgive loans in the context of COVID. The Biden administration has cited the HEROES Act as authorization for loan forgiveness, but some legal scholars have argued that the law is a flimsy pretext to go on, in part because it was passed in a very different context (some legal scholars have argued that he should've cited the Higher Education Act of 1965 instead). In other words, the PPP loan forgiveness program is clearly in the first zone of authority that Jackson talks about, whereas student loan forgiveness arguably isn't.

Fair enough regarding the CARES Acts' PPP loan forgiveness authorization, however the DOJ memo explicitly cites:

The
plain text of the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to “waive or
modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to” the federal
student loan program, 20 U.S.C. § 1098bb(a)(1) (emphasis added), an
authority that encompasses provisions applicable to the repayment of the
principal balances of loans, provided certain conditions are met.

So I don't understand what about that falls into the 3rd zone instead the 2nd where "Congressional inertia/indifference" would grant him the authority. Furthermore, Jackson's own website states presidential power in the "zone of twilight" may come down to "dependent on the events and the contemporary theory of law existing at the time" I don't think one can ignore the educational premium burden when presenting the facts of this case. Granted, my legal education consists of 2 undergrad b-law classes and taking AP Gov over half a decade ago so I defer to those who know more ab what's going on w/this.

[GP270watch]

Multiple pieces of legislation give the executive branch this authority, this was never in question. The legal argument against it is a squishy moralistic one. The text of the law is clear. Could a terrible conservative bench who makes things up as they go along try and reverse it, maybe, but also let them try and collect it from the students who's loans were forgiven. That's going to be a lot of fun to watch.

[Donerail]

Will it stand? My fear is it will be overturned by a judge.

Who has standing to challenge the plan to begin with, not least in light of what the conservative Court thinks re: standing?

The student loan servicing companies are the most obvious answer although I doubt any will because that's basically asking for their contract to not be renewed.

A more likely candidate might be the banks that still collect interest on pre-2010 loans although at this point that may not be enough to be worth it for such a suit especially if that also makes future federal contracts unlikely.

Most likely one imo is recipients of the forgiveness, who, in a handful of states, just saw their state income tax spike. This is the more likely route, I think; they'll find someone in Mississippi who suddenly got stuck with a $500 tax bill, point to that as injury, and bring the case up through the 5th Circuit.

[Orser67]

Fair enough regarding the CARES Acts' PPP loan forgiveness authorization, however the DOJ memo explicitly cites:

The
plain text of the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to “waive or
modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to” the federal
student loan program, 20 U.S.C. § 1098bb(a)(1) (emphasis added), an
authority that encompasses provisions applicable to the repayment of the
principal balances of loans, provided certain conditions are met.

So I don't understand what about that falls into the 3rd zone instead the 2nd where "Congressional inertia/indifference" would grant him the authority. Furthermore, Jackson's own website states presidential power in the "zone of twilight" may come down to "dependent on the events and the contemporary theory of law existing at the time" I don't think one can ignore the educational premium burden when presenting the facts of this case. Granted, my legal education consists of 2 undergrad b-law classes and taking AP Gov over half a decade ago so I defer to those who know more ab what's going on w/this.

I'm not aware of anyone arguing that loan forgiveness falls into the third zone (i.e. no one is arguing that Congress passed a law explicitly forbidding the president from forgiving student loans), the issue is more whether it's in the first zone or the second zone. It's not necessarily the case that something is illegal/unconstitutional just for being in the second zone, but generally a president's actions are on much stronger ground when they're in the first zone.

Honestly, I tend to agree with your arguments, but I am not the Supreme Court. This article I linked earlier talks about the possibility that COVID-19 doesn't count as a "national emergency" in the context of the HEROES Act; while I don't agree, I do think there's at least some opening for a judicial interpretation there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Will it stand? My fear is it will be overturned by a judge.

Who has standing to challenge the plan to begin with, not least in light of what the conservative Court thinks re: standing?

The student loan servicing companies are the most obvious answer although I doubt any will because that's basically asking for their contract to not be renewed.

A more likely candidate might be the banks that still collect interest on pre-2010 loans although at this point that may not be enough to be worth it for such a suit especially if that also makes future federal contracts unlikely.

Most likely one imo is recipients of the forgiveness, who, in a handful of states, just saw their state income tax spike. This is the more likely route, I think; they'll find someone in Mississippi who suddenly got stuck with a $500 tax bill, point to that as injury, and bring the case up through the 5th Circuit.

Couldn't the Department of Education just put in an opt-out option to get around that?

[Inmate Trump]

If the SCOTUS wants to try and stop it…I encourage them to, see how that works.

Can you imagine?

The abortion ruling + overriding the cancelation of student debt...Democrats would probably keep the House too at that point.