Student Debt Forgiveness Efforts Faces Legal Challenges
This year, a senior official from the Biden administration clarified that the U.S. Department of Education had no intention of initiating the cancellation of up to $147 billion in student debt for approximately 25 million Americans prior to finalizing the program’s rules. This statement comes amid allegations from seven Republican state attorneys general who assert otherwise.
Background on Legal Dispute
The state attorneys general recently secured a temporary injunction from a Georgia judge that stalls President Joe Biden’s proposed federal student loan forgiveness initiative. They argued that the Department of Education was attempting to covertly implement the forgiveness plan ahead of the final rules set for publication in October.
Claims of Misconduct
The lawsuit from the AGs contends that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona issued directives to loan servicing companies to commence widespread loan cancellations immediately, suggesting this action would contravene existing regulations that require the finalization of rules first.
Administration’s Defense
A Biden administration representative countered these allegations, stating that the Department of Education merely instructed loan servicers to prepare for the forthcoming debt cancellation. The official confirmed, “We would not execute a rule before it’s finalized.”
A source associated with the loan servicing sector corroborated this perspective, explaining that the Department had only advised servicers about the necessary preparations for the impending relief program. These preparatory steps included:
- Training customer service representatives on how to explain the relief measures to borrowers.
- Updating information on websites related to the program.
The source emphasized that this preparatory work is standard procedure for any new initiative.
Opposition’s Evidence and Legal Arguments
Despite the administration’s statements, a spokesperson for the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, one of the plaintiffs in the legal battle, claimed, “We possess evidence to the contrary, which we submitted under seal.” This evidence remains concealed until the Department agrees to its disclosure.
History of Legal Challenges
This current program marks the third effort by the Biden administration to secure student debt forgiveness and has faced barriers from Republican-led legal actions. In June 2023, the Supreme Court deemed the initial attempt to forgive as much as $400 billion in student debt unconstitutional, asserting that it lacked congressional authorization.
Then, two months ago, a federal appeals court suspended Biden’s new repayment plan called SAVE, in which Republican-led states claimed the Department of Education was effectively attempting to bypass the Supreme Court’s ruling on student debt cancellation.
Details of the New Lawsuit
The recent lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Augusta, Georgia, contends that the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness initiative breaches the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers by seeking to erode billions in debts without legislative approval. The states involved in this legal action include:
- Missouri
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Georgia
- North Dakota
- Ohio
Judicial Actions and Implications
On a recent Thursday, U.S. District Judge Randal Hall issued a temporary restraining order against the new program, indicating the AGs “have obtained documents revealing the Secretary is implementing this forgiveness plan … without publication and has been set on doing so since May.” He noted that the states demonstrated “a substantial likelihood of success” in their lawsuit due to the Secretary’s actions that appeared to contradict established procedures.
A hearing regarding the lawsuit is scheduled for the following week. Mark Kantrowitz, a noted expert in higher education, commented on the normalcy of preparatory actions taken by executive branch agencies in anticipation of enacting new regulations. He asserted that preparatory measures do not break any laws and emphasized the importance of having finalized rules before any action can be taken for debt forgiveness.
Future Concerns and Observations
Although Judge Hall may find no violations concerning the regulatory timeline, he still has the authority to nullify the relief plan on constitutional or other grounds. Observers, including consumer and legal advocates, expressed concerns regarding the speed at which the judge endorsed the states’ claim of improper urgency by the Biden administration.
Such judicial attitudes might facilitate a precedent where conservative judges can issue rulings based on assumptions without firmly grounding them in established legal principles or precedents.
By
By
By
