Lawsuit aims to stop Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
26,570
35,515
113
But it's entirely up to the president to determine what is and what is not an emergency. That has been adjudicated and ruled on by the Supreme Court I believe. For instance, Trump declared a border emergency and redirected funding to the border wall. The law is plain as day that loans can be adjusted or forgiven if there is an emergency, and declaration of an emergency is at the sole discretion of the president.

The only reason that a court would rule another way is partisan politics. Period.
There wasn’t a Covid emergency to justify loan forgiveness.

You’re probably right though…it’s still BS nonetheless.
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,582
12,945
113
There wasn’t a Covid emergency to justify loan forgiveness.

You’re probably right though…it’s still BS nonetheless.
Declared March of 2020 and to my knowledge it hasn’t been rescinded. The education act post 9/11 gave the president that power.

It was the same act used by the president to divert funds to the border wall. At least to
My knowledge it was upheld by the courts.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
26,570
35,515
113
Declared March of 2020 and to my knowledge it hasn’t been rescinded. The education act post 9/11 gave the president that power.

It was the same act used by the president to divert funds to the border wall. At least to
My knowledge it was upheld by the courts.
Maybe so…still BS.

Spending $600B + in that fashion isn’t optimal to put it mildly. Should have went through Congress.
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,582
12,945
113
Maybe so…still BS.

Spending $600B + in that fashion isn’t optimal to put it mildly. Should have went through Congress.
I agree. 100%. No doubt. Republicans who complain about this use of emergency spending and didn’t complain about trump use of emergency spending for the wall look stupid. In both cases, Congress debated spending the money and didn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
26,570
35,515
113
I agree. 100%. No doubt. Republicans who complain about this use of emergency spending and didn’t complain about trump use of emergency spending for the wall look stupid. In both cases, Congress debated spending the money and didn’t.
Agree.

Unfortunately this is probably SOP moving forward unless Congress grows balls and fights for their constitutional power of the purse…

The growth of Executive power is a problem IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,582
12,945
113
Agree.

Unfortunately this is probably SOP moving forward unless Congress grows balls and fights for their constitutional power of the purse…

The growth of Executive power is a problem IMO.
Again. I agree. Would congressional limits on presidential use of emergency powers be constitutional?
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
26,570
35,515
113
Again. I agree. Would congressional limits on presidential use of emergency powers be constitutional?
Administration used the Heroes act to justify student loan forgiveness. Congress needs to be more reluctant to give the executive that much leeway to spend money.

Need to amend it and other acts that basically give the executive too much power. No appetite for that though…they’d have to do their jobs
 

Red Runney

All-Conference
Jun 22, 2022
340
330
63
Bettendorf IA
Hopefully it is successful we can't afford any more of this whack out of control spending.


309226165_655632349515708_4246978398901258897_n.jpg
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,123
52,321
113
How is a tax cut that went through the proper channels considered out of control spending?
This went through congressionally/constitutionally approved "proper channels", correct? Does Biden have the power or not? If so, it's as "proper" as any other spending...or cutting of revenue...or moving spending around to cover pet projects. If not, it's unconstitutional.
 

Rifler

HR Legend
Jan 26, 2011
25,035
19,962
113
So he declared it over in an interview lol. So it’s not technically over haha. Good god guys, let’s use our heads here

I suppose you're right,.. Biden's just the President and not really in charge of anything.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
2,867
3,021
113
I’m genuinely curious. Why shouldn’t the plain language hold? It doesn’t seem to demand interpretation. It’s the plain language.
Apologies as for some reason I missed this. I think the 'technical' jurisprudential argument would be that it is not so much "plain language" as "original meaning" (which is not quite the same as "original intent") that should control. So, the argument would go, the emergency powers authorization should be read in light of the statute that included it, which of course was enacted well before Covid was even a twinkle in President Xi's eye. That would of course be consistent with the emerging theme that it is democratically elected legislatures that have to speak clearly and precisely when granting the executive powers. Now again, that's not to say it's the better approach here, since as I've noted, we did a lot of things under the Korean War emergency long after the 38th parallel DMZ was established, suggesting a broad and deferential interpretation consistent with the nature and needs of emergencies. But, we are living in a post WV v EPA world, so maybe there are no more emergency powers invocations untethered to their original statutory authorizations.

Separately, I see that one of the lawsuits in WI was dismissed for lack of standing. A clear challenge to a lot of putative plaintiffs, though it's not at all clear to me whether the WI plaintiffs presented the same case for injury that the Indiana plaintiff did, or that the states did. (Interestingly -- and perhaps in a hold on there a second fella realm -- the Wi court apparently said that there's no need for an injunction because if the law were later struck down the feds could then just collect the money it had previously waived. Now wouldn't that be interesting.)
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,582
12,945
113
Apologies as for some reason I missed this. I think the 'technical' jurisprudential argument would be that it is not so much "plain language" as "original meaning" (which is not quite the same as "original intent") that should control. So, the argument would go, the emergency powers authorization should be read in light of the statute that included it, which of course was enacted well before Covid was even a twinkle in President Xi's eye. That would of course be consistent with the emerging theme that it is democratically elected legislatures that have to speak clearly and precisely when granting the executive powers. Now again, that's not to say it's the better approach here, since as I've noted, we did a lot of things under the Korean War emergency long after the 38th parallel DMZ was established, suggesting a broad and deferential interpretation consistent with the nature and needs of emergencies. But, we are living in a post WV v EPA world, so maybe there are no more emergency powers invocations untethered to their original statutory authorizations.

Separately, I see that one of the lawsuits in WI was dismissed for lack of standing. A clear challenge to a lot of putative plaintiffs, though it's not at all clear to me whether the WI plaintiffs presented the same case for injury that the Indiana plaintiff did, or that the states did. (Interestingly -- and perhaps in a hold on there a second fella realm -- the Wi court apparently said that there's no need for an injunction because if the law were later struck down the feds could then just collect the money it had previously waived. Now wouldn't that be interesting.)

I really appreciate the explanation, although I don’t get it, but whatever. I don’t understand how clear text can be overridden by a judicial interpretation of congressional intent. Put another way, couldn't Congress have limited those powers in the legislation? The law, as I understand it gives the President the power to modify loans in the event of a national emergency and historically, the president decides what’s an emergency.

Did Congress intend this law only in the circumstances of a terrorist attack? If so, why didn’t they say so?
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,308
19,684
113
Administration used the Heroes act to justify student loan forgiveness. Congress needs to be more reluctant to give the executive that much leeway to spend money.

Need to amend it and other acts that basically give the executive too much power. No appetite for that though…they’d have to do their jobs
Once the power is ceded to the executive, you have to have a veto proof majority. Very few Presidents are going to sign a bill that takes away their power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,308
19,684
113
Apologies as for some reason I missed this. I think the 'technical' jurisprudential argument would be that it is not so much "plain language" as "original meaning" (which is not quite the same as "original intent") that should control. So, the argument would go, the emergency powers authorization should be read in light of the statute that included it, which of course was enacted well before Covid was even a twinkle in President Xi's eye. That would of course be consistent with the emerging theme that it is democratically elected legislatures that have to speak clearly and precisely when granting the executive powers. Now again, that's not to say it's the better approach here, since as I've noted, we did a lot of things under the Korean War emergency long after the 38th parallel DMZ was established, suggesting a broad and deferential interpretation consistent with the nature and needs of emergencies. But, we are living in a post WV v EPA world, so maybe there are no more emergency powers invocations untethered to their original statutory authorizations.

Separately, I see that one of the lawsuits in WI was dismissed for lack of standing. A clear challenge to a lot of putative plaintiffs, though it's not at all clear to me whether the WI plaintiffs presented the same case for injury that the Indiana plaintiff did, or that the states did. (Interestingly -- and perhaps in a hold on there a second fella realm -- the Wi court apparently said that there's no need for an injunction because if the law were later struck down the feds could then just collect the money it had previously waived. Now wouldn't that be interesting.)
Standing will definitely be an issue in most of the cases.
 

bhawk24bob

HR Legend
Jul 8, 2001
17,834
5,787
113
Since we've last touched on this, the Biden administration has removed access to forgiveness to FFELP borrowers, dropped the ball on instructing people when to consolidate by, failed to produce a form to let people to submit for forgiveness, given out refunds that they (or a future administration) may need to say sorry on, and paused anything for a few weeks until this lawsuit brought by 6 AG's can be heard for injunctive relief. Nice job, Joe.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,308
19,684
113
I really appreciate the explanation, although I don’t get it, but whatever. I don’t understand how clear text can be overridden by a judicial interpretation of congressional intent. Put another way, couldn't Congress have limited those powers in the legislation? The law, as I understand it gives the President the power to modify loans in the event of a national emergency and historically, the president decides what’s an emergency.

Did Congress intend this law only in the circumstances of a terrorist attack? If so, why didn’t they say so?
Here's a link to the text.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ76/pdf/PLAW-108publ76.pdf

Here's the definition -

(4) NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—The term ‘‘national emergency’’ means a national emergency declared by the President of the United States.

While the intent is semi-clear, the actual law leaves a lot of discretion.
 

Aardvark86

HR All-American
Jan 23, 2018
2,867
3,021
113
I really appreciate the explanation, although I don’t get it, but whatever. I don’t understand how clear text can be overridden by a judicial interpretation of congressional intent. Put another way, couldn't Congress have limited those powers in the legislation? The law, as I understand it gives the President the power to modify loans in the event of a national emergency and historically, the president decides what’s an emergency.

Did Congress intend this law only in the circumstances of a terrorist attack? If so, why didn’t they say so?
Fair enough. But a couple of notes.

Again, first, the specific. Yes, the law contains a textually broad grant, yes the executive will rely on that, and yes the executive might win on that. BUT, again, that grant of authority arose in a particular context (post-9/11).

And that leads to the second point, which frankly is illustrated pretty well here. Set aside that the emergency in question ain't 9/11. Even set aside that the President himself has suggested that the emergency is over in (obviously nonbinding) statements on national media. The broader point -- and really the bigger issue -- is how courts will actually feel about relatively boundless emergency authority invocations, ie will they construe them broadly or narrowly, at least in a way that ties into the kind of emergencies that Congress had in mind, and as open-ended or time-limited exercises? Honestly, I think the argument is less about the congressional grant of authority than it is about the executive's emergency declarations. Indeed, even in today's Scotus argument in National Pork Producers, some analogous concerns were raised about states' ability to enact "moral" regulations having extraterritorial effect. If the Roberts court is ultimately going to be defined by something, it's not simply "abortion" or "religious freedom" or anything like that. It is going to be defined by the much broader theme of requiring legislators to make the core policy choices, and requiring the executive to fairly abide by them.

PS - Re National Pork Producers, Iowa featured prominently in the argument, and I suspect that CA will win more than they lose in this case when all is said and done. But, all of the members of the court were VERY concerned about the implications of the case for "interstate commercial regulatory warfare".
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,308
19,684
113
Ilya Somin at Reason has a nice piece on who might actually have it. Short answer: the guy from Pacific, states, or student loan servicing companies.
I missed that on Reason. Thanks for the heads up. It's a truly good read.

If the Administration keeps changing the rules to eliminate plaintiffs, soon the amount of loan forgiveness won't amount to much.
 

Jimmy McGill

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 9, 2018
14,505
25,061
113
Earth
Just filed for 10K$ loan forgiveness. I qualify, but we'll see what happens with lawsuits.

FYI for the bitchers of this program..... I paid off all my undergrad loans while I was in Iraq, and my law school loans have been paid down from 120K to about 24K. So don't give me shit about "well, I paid my own way"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's

DogBoyRy

HR Legend
Jul 28, 2006
10,706
7,391
113
Just filed for 10K$ loan forgiveness. I qualify, but we'll see what happens with lawsuits.

FYI for the bitchers of this program..... I paid off all my undergrad loans while I was in Iraq, and my law school loans have been paid down from 120K to about 24K. So don't give me shit about "well, I paid my own way"
You didn’t get the 9/11 payment for grad school?
 

MitchLL

HR Legend
Dec 26, 2018
22,403
35,710
113
Looks like many of these Trump appointed Judges didn't get the message about pandering to the MAGAts.

But still don't like how they lied about Roe v Wade.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
97,601
127,905
113
Looks like many of these Trump appointed Judges didn't get the message about pandering to the MAGAts.

But still don't like how they lied about Roe v Wade.
Meh. Seems like she just said this isn’t a front burner issue until it’s made it’s way through the courts. I wish they’d taken this approach to some of the social issues they are grabbing at this term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey