SCOTUS to take up Biden's student loan forgiveness plan in February

[politicallefty]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1598404594870222879?cxt=HHwWvoC8ydSg1q4sAAAA

Here we go.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well it's going down then. At least he tried.

Biden definitely timed this right though, he got it out and motivated young voters before the midterms. Had he done it a year earlier it would've been struck down by the midterms.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Technically, couldn't they have just allowed the Texas judges ruling to stand if they wanted to keep the program gutted? Or are they adding salt to the wound by taking it up with zero chance of actually ruling in favor of the administration?

All in all, this seems like a relatively low stakes case and Roberts would be smart to continue defusing tension by finding some sort of moderate-hero compromise to keep the program alive.

Of course the fact that we're even having this discussion speaks to the complete brokenness of our entire system, smh.

[Illiniwek]

Not great, Bob.

[pantsaregood]

Well it's going down then. At least he tried.

Biden definitely timed this right though, he got it out and motivated young voters before the midterms. Had he done it a year earlier it would've been struck down by the midterms.

That's not really the takeaway, is it? If Kavanaugh had rejected the appeal, it would've been over. Instead, arguments are being heard in February.

Can someone explain to me why this is "bad?" As far as I'm aware, the options were to reject the appeal (loan forgiveness stays dead) or hear arguments. "Biden wins and we go home happy" wasn't an option from Kavanaugh's decision.

[Beet]

Does this mean that the repayment freeze extends until June since SCOTUS is not likely to hand down a ruling until late Spring?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Does this mean that the repayment freeze extends until June since SCOTUS is not likely to hand down a ruling until late Spring?

Yes.

[John Dule]

Glorious news.

[politicallefty]

Technically, couldn't they have just allowed the Texas judges ruling to stand if they wanted to keep the program gutted? Or are they adding salt to the wound by taking it up with zero chance of actually ruling in favor of the administration?

This is the appeal from the Eighth Circuit (in particular, Missouri). (The Texas case was quite different and the Fifth Circuit just yesterday refused to stay that decision.) The district court in Missouri ruled against Missouri and the other states on the standing issue, but the Eighth Circuit determined that Missouri did have standing and put an injunction on the plan. The Biden Administration appealed and was asking SCOTUS to vacate the injunction and let the plan go into effect. It's worth noting that this was the last paragraph of the DOJ's petition to the Court:

This Court should vacate, or at minimum narrow, the injunction pending appeal entered by the court of appeals. If, however, the Court declines to vacate the injunction, it may wish to construe this application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant the petition, and set this case for expedited briefing and argument this Term.

I agree that there is little cause for optimism. However, there was virtually no chance for the Biden Administration to win in either the Fifth or Eighth Circuits.

If it is an adverse ruling, those affected will know where it came from. Perhaps the Biden Administration could try doing something through a different avenue. In the meantime, maybe he should just keep student loans on pause for the duration of his Presidency.

EDIT: There are the questions before the Court:

(1) whether respondents have Article III standing;

(2) whether the plan exceeds the Secretary's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Technically, couldn't they have just allowed the Texas judges ruling to stand if they wanted to keep the program gutted? Or are they adding salt to the wound by taking it up with zero chance of actually ruling in favor of the administration?

This is the appeal from the Eighth Circuit (in particular, Missouri). (The Texas case was quite different and the Fifth Circuit just yesterday refused to stay that decision.) The district court in Missouri ruled against Missouri and the other states on the standing issue, but the Eighth Circuit determined that Missouri did have standing and put an injunction on the plan. The Biden Administration appealed and was asking SCOTUS to vacate the injunction and let the plan go into effect. It's worth noting that this was the last paragraph of the DOJ's petition to the Court:

This Court should vacate, or at minimum narrow, the injunction pending appeal entered by the court of appeals. If, however, the Court declines to vacate the injunction, it may wish to construe this application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant the petition, and set this case for expedited briefing and argument this Term.

I agree that there is little cause for optimism. However, there was virtually no chance for the Biden Administration to win in either the Fifth or Eighth Circuits.

If it is an adverse ruling, those affected will know where it came from. Perhaps the Biden Administration could try doing something through a different avenue. In the meantime, maybe he should just keep student loans on pause for the duration of his Presidency.

EDIT: There are the questions before the Court:

(1) whether respondents have Article III standing;

(2) whether the plan exceeds the Secretary's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.

Keeping the hold indefinitely isn't really an option for various reasons that would take awhile to go over...but the main one is that the servicing companies will probably stop dropping their contracts as they won't be earning as much and it'd be very difficult to replace them with no clear end date to the hold. It's also something Biden doesn't seem to be interested in.

[President Johnson]

Yeah, it's probably going down now. Disgusting, and everything because Mitch stole a seat from Obama. Never forgotten.

Even though it's depressing for a lot of people, maybe this helps Biden for 2024. At least he tried, and he can present himself as bulwark against right-wing courts.

[politicallefty]

Keeping the hold indefinitely isn't really an option for various reasons that would take awhile to go over...but the main one is that the servicing companies will probably stop dropping their contracts as they won't be earning as much and it'd be very difficult to replace them with no clear end date to the hold. It's also something Biden doesn't seem to be interested in.

Some would say that's a feature, not a bug. It all depends on how SCOTUS rules. He's already granted an extension for everyone that will now probably last no less than half of next year. I do wonder if there's a backup plan that could provide relief for a great deal if there's an adverse ruling, considering many people have already received cancellation of their loans for various reasons. I'm reminded of when the VA Supreme Court struck down Terry McAuliffe's blanket felony reenfranchisement order. He responded by using the autopen to restore voting rights one by one.

[Skill and Chance]

Yeah, it's probably going down now. Disgusting, and everything because Mitch stole a seat from Obama. Never forgotten.

I highly doubt Roberts is going along with this anyway.  He pretty consistently rules with the right on these executive orders that test the limits of administrative law. 

Also, the 8th circuit case is the stronger one.  The 5th circuit stretches standing in a way that could flood the federal courts with challenges anytime the federal government distributes benefits.

[Hermit For Peace]

Frankly I have lost almost all faith in the Supreme Court. They are tainted. I don't see why this matter has to go to them. I was under the impression that Biden had the authority to do this.

[Vosem]

Yeah, it's probably going down now. Disgusting, and everything because Mitch stole a seat from Obama. Never forgotten.

Even though it's depressing for a lot of people, maybe this helps Biden for 2024. At least he tried, and he can present himself as bulwark against right-wing courts.

There is rather substantial evidence that this is a good issue for conservatives (from Shor's polling; from the fact that the GOP really obviously gained in the generic ballot the week after this was announced, when it was the main issue for a brief period; and when you consider public opinion on redistributive policy generally).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was wondering about June being mentioned in for the forbearance timing. I guess they knew it was probably already going to SCOTUS and they like to make a lot of June rulings.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Yeah, it's probably going down now. Disgusting, and everything because Mitch stole a seat from Obama. Never forgotten.

Even though it's depressing for a lot of people, maybe this helps Biden for 2024. At least he tried, and he can present himself as bulwark against right-wing courts.

There is rather substantial evidence that this is a good issue for conservatives (from Shor's polling; from the fact that the GOP really obviously gained in the generic ballot the week after this was announced, when it was the main issue for a brief period; and when you consider public opinion on redistributive policy generally).

What data are you seeing? After this was first announced at the end of August, Democrats at worst maintained their position on the GCB or expanded their lead slightly. This issue polled with majority support the entire election.

[Blue3]

Why would it be going down? This is based on power clearly given to the executive by Congress.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Why would it be going down? This is based on power clearly given to the executive by Congress.

You're assuming that this Supreme Court actually cares about things other than their own personal partisan political goals.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Yeah, it's probably going down now. Disgusting, and everything because Mitch stole a seat from Obama. Never forgotten.

Even though it's depressing for a lot of people, maybe this helps Biden for 2024. At least he tried, and he can present himself as bulwark against right-wing courts.

There is rather substantial evidence that this is a good issue for conservatives (from Shor's polling; from the fact that the GOP really obviously gained in the generic ballot the week after this was announced, when it was the main issue for a brief period; and when you consider public opinion on redistributive policy generally).

What data are you seeing? After this was first announced at the end of August, Democrats at worst maintained their position on the GCB or expanded their lead slightly. This issue polled with majority support the entire election.

Vosem has a longstanding very low opinion of the quality of issue polling so that dog won't hunt with him, but I'm wondering where he's seeing the other data he mentions too.

[politicallefty]

Technically, couldn't they have just allowed the Texas judges ruling to stand if they wanted to keep the program gutted? Or are they adding salt to the wound by taking it up with zero chance of actually ruling in favor of the administration?

To provide an update, the DOJ filed an appeal of the Texas case today. Part of the brief is the same as the other appeal and ends similarly:

This Court should stay the judgment of the district court pending appeal and pending the filing and disposition of any petition for a writ of certiorari. If, however, the Court is not prepared to grant an immediate stay, it may wish to defer consideration of this application pending oral argument, construe the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant the petition, and hear this case along with Biden v. Nebraska, cert. granted, No. 22-506 (Dec. 1, 2022).

This district court judge made a substantive ruling when only a procedural argument was made. In fact, the judge actually didn't find issue with the government on procedural grounds (Congress explicitly exempted the HEROES Act from the notice and comment requirements of the APA). I think that's what many people would consider to be judicial activism. Just read this part of the DOJ's brief when you consider what the district court judge did:

Respondents are two student-loan borrowers. Myra Brown is not eligible for relief under the plan, and Alexander Taylor is eligible for $10,000 rather than $20,000 in relief. Respondents alleged that they were improperly denied the opportunity to comment on the plan and represented that if the Secretary had proceeded through notice and comment, they would have urged him to adopt broader eligibility criteria and to provide greater debt relief. The district court rejected respondents’ procedural claim, observing that the HEROES Act expressly exempts the Secretary’s actions from notice-and-comment procedures. Yet even though respondents had raised only a procedural claim and had not argued that the Secretary’s provision of debt relief to other borrowers inflicted any injury on them, the court went on to hold that, as a substantive matter, the plan exceeded the Secretary’s statutory authority. Based on that holding, the court vacated the plan nationwide -- a result that afforded no redress to respondents, and actually cost Taylor $10,000. The court of appeals, in turn, issued an unreasoned order denying a stay pending appeal.

Why would it be going down? This is based on power clearly given to the executive by Congress.

I personally think we should wait until oral arguments before jumping to conclusions, but for the most part, what's past is prologue with this Court and the right-wing judges throughout the judiciary. I see no evidence that the right-wing cares about textualism other than to give credence to preordained decisions. Interestingly though, it is the Biden Administration that posed the questions that are now before the Court. I suppose they'd rather take their chances there than hope for a miracle in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, not to mention get a faster resolution so they can potentially figure out another plan (if the decision doesn't go their way).