The student loan forgiveness program has run into another speed bump:
A federal judge in Texas has struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, declaring it illegal.
....“The program is [] an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power and must be vacated,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman, who was nominated by then-President Donald Trump. “In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone,” he continued.
Hmmm. A Texas judge nominated by Donald Trump. Who could have guessed such a person might rule against a Democratic president?
I am, myself, not that worried about the loan forgiveness program being possibly illegal. But I have to admit that Republicans have a stronger case here than they usually do in their assorted gripes about anything that helps non-Republicans. The various laws the Justice Department has used to justify the program seem like fairly thin reeds to me. I wouldn't be very surprised if nobody ever sees a dime from it—and there might even be one or two liberal Supreme Court justices who agree.
I think the problem with this case, like all the others so far, is standing. One of the plaintiffs is whining because they had private loans and were therefore excluded from the program, the other didn't have a Pell Grant and so couldn't get the maximum relief.
Actually granting them standing, as this idiot, er judge, did opens up pretty much any law or executive action to legal challenge. Not sure even SCOTUS is interested in entering the fray on this thin reed.
+1
RE: plaintiffs whining. NPR referred to it as the "toddler reaction": If I can't have it NOBODY CAN!!
The issue of standing is one that calls for considerable judicial care. As a policy matter, you don't want to let just anybody bring a legal challenge to government action they don't approve of. On the other hand, the rules should not be so restrictive as to put government action, no matter how blatantly illegal, beyond any possibility of challenge.
In other words, any law or executive action SHOULD be subject to legal challenge, but not by too many challengers.
Forgive all of it so everyone gets it.
Provide tax credits for any student loan debt paid by anyone over the past 30 years.
Tell Republicans to sit and spin. What's the worst that happens, Democrats lose House and Senate seats in 2024?
I could see the Supreme Court striking it down (if they ever get a solid challenge) on non-delegation doctrine, which they'd like to advance although likely won't apply consistently.
"Old wealthy white male college grad deeply unconcerned with student loan forgiveness, film at 11."
The good news is we are on the path to irrelevance, and all sorts of new misconceptions, grudges and stupidity will finally supplant Viet Nam, the GI Bill and Tammy Fay Bakker as definitional underpinnings of our political tradition.
In a reasonable world, a US President would need congress to go to war, build a wall or forgive large amounts of debt. Of course we don't live in a reasonable world!
The requirement for Congress to declare war is black-and-white in the Constitution. But Biden is claiming he has executive authority on the basis of the legislation passed by Congress, a more technical legal question. The real question is why Democrats in Congress don't back him up and amend the law or pass a new one. Or why didn't Biden put it in their laps long ago instead of delaying the decision as if it were indisputably his alone.
Please outline any possible student loan reform package that can either get to sixty votes in the Senate, or that can get Joe Manchin to agree to abolish the filibuster over.
Did Biden really think he could do this without having it go eventually to the Supreme Court, where more than a couple of Justices will try to kill it? This was a campaign promise and he had to make some effort to fulfill it.
Weirdly enough, I think we are probably giving the Executive too much power these days, and some Republicans (cf "unitary executive") are on the forefront of this. (Also see "I can declassifty things just by thinking about it").
So, long term, I would be delighted to see SCOTUS apply some limits to executive power. Provided, of course, they do it consistently regardless of the party of the president. Which with this court is a crapshoot.
This has been happening for a while, and part of the cause is increased polarization and gridlock in Congress. Filibuster-proof majorities are rare, so Presidents start to act without authorization. It would be good to reign them in, but you need to fix Congress first.
The only limits this SCOTUS would allow would be ones that only apply to Democrats.
What's needed is for Congress to do its job instead of delegating everything to the executive. Writing a law that even arguably allows the president to give away a trillion dollars or so is not Congress doing its job.
The initial error, besides all the legal mumbo jumbo (and we've seen enough proof in this country that application of the law is lopsided at best), was one of communication. Again. The Conservatives roared out immediately with a unified smoke and mirrors, astro-turfed message that clouded any meaningful public discussion and the plebians, who would have benefited the most, again sided with Capital and decided to suffer.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The ruling can be found at the URL below; it's entry number 37 on the docket.
I'm not an expert on standing, but the reasoning on standing seems nonsensical. The plaintiffs claim they were injured (and thus have standing to sue) because the Depart ment of Education failed to hold a legally required notice and comment review of the program, thus depriving plaintiffs of the opportunity to submit comments which might have convinced the Department to offer more debt relief to the plaintiffs. According to the judge, this is sufficient for standing even though (1) the standing argument is wrong on the law--the Heroes Act doesn't require a notice and comment period, and (2) wrong on the substance--the Department wasn't authorized to provide the debt relief that it did, much less more debt relief.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65411576/brown-v-us-department-of-education/
Well he's not wrong.
Trump uses crayons.
"Hmmm. A Texas judge nominated by Donald Trump. Who could have guessed such a person might rule against a Democratic president? "
From his Wiki:
He is vice president and a founding member of the Tarrant County Federalist Society.