WASHINGTON — Missouri federal judges and Judge Amy Coney Barrett dismiss President Biden’s student debt relief program as they dismiss challenges to drastic measures that could cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars. An attempt to prevent it suffered a double setback on Thursday.
Judge Henry E. Autry of the United States District Court of St. Louis dismissed the more prominent of the two lawsuits filed by six Republican-led states. The lawsuit gives Biden the authority under a 2003 federal law to authorize the secretary of education to change financial assistance programs for students “in connection with war or other military operations, or national emergencies.” accused of exceeding
This plan will write off $10,000 of debt for those earning less than $125,000 a year, or $250,000 per household, and $20,000 for those who received Pell Grants for Low Income Families. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office said last month that he estimated the cost of the plan at $400 billion, and the Department of Education a few days later put a similar estimate at $379 billion over the life of the program.
Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Autry did not rule on the larger issues of the lawsuits filed by Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina. Instead, he said he did not suffer enough injuries for the state to file a lawsuit.
The judge said, “While plaintiffs have material and material objections to the debt relief plan, plaintiffs as of now cannot proceed to resolve those objections.”
Student Loan Debt Relief Details
- Legal challenge: Six Republican-led states have filed lawsuits to block President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, accusing him of going far beyond his powers.
- Plan price tag: Biden’s plan could cost about $400 billion, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, making it one of the most expensive programs on the president’s agenda.
- Hard sell: At the White House and on Air Force One, supporters of debt forgiveness worked hard to win Mr. Biden’s support. Here’s how he finally gave in.
- Who Benefits?: As many critics have argued, the big winners in Mr. Biden’s plan aren’t the rich Harvard or Yale graduates. It’s middle class and disproportionately young blacks.
The state said it plans to appeal.
The state lawsuit is seen as the most significant threat to Mr. Biden’s plans, and Judge Autry’s ruling allowed the government to start paying back the loan even on Sunday. More than 12 million people have applied for debt forgiveness since the application portal opened late last week.
Other legal challenges remain, including lawsuits backed by the Job Creators Network, a right-leaning trade group for business owners. A hearing on the injunction request is scheduled for Tuesday before a federal judge in Fort Worth.
In a second development Thursday, Judge Barrett dismissed another challenge to the debt relief program from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Association.
Judge Barrett denied the association’s challenge without comment. This is court practice for urgent applications. She acted independently without referring the application to the courts and did not seek a response from the government. Both of these moves indicated that the application lacked a solid legal basis.
She said no, but Judge Barrett most likely dismissed the petition because the plaintiff, the Brown County Taxpayers Association, appeared to lack standing.
Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court in Green Bay, Wisconsin, dismissed the association’s lawsuit without saying whether Mr. Biden acted lawfully. Judge Bach ruled that the Society had failed to prove that it was entitled to sue.
The Supreme Court has said plaintiffs cannot stand to challenge government programs simply by paying taxes. “If all federal taxpayers were able to sue and challenge government spending, federal courts would cease to function as courts and would assume the role of a general appeals office,” Samuel A. Judge Alito Jr. writes in his 2007.
The court made narrow exceptions to some religious challenges, but Justice Griesbach noted that even those exceptions were “subject to much criticism.”
He rejected the group’s request to expand the exception to allow him to challenge the student loan program.
Justice Griesbach also questioned whether an injunction to stop the program would be warranted even if challengers stood. , he wrote, could be held liable again for debts that have been forgiven.
The judge wrote, “Future administrations may not be bound by the Biden administration’s program and may seek to collect debts they are purportedly forgiven.” Judge Griesbach added that “those seeking to avail themselves of the program” may wish to “consider this possibility before relying too heavily on the promised benefits.”
A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago refused to intervene in the unsigned order without cause. Judge Barrett oversees the circuit, and urgent requests for her ruling are directed to her first.
In its application, the Association argued that the amounts involved justified a relaxation of existing rules. We are witnessing a significant increase,” wrote a lawyer for the association.
They added: They stand to challenge him and threaten the very foundations of the constitutional republic. ”
Stacey Cowley Contributed a report from New York.