Douglas Rissing | Istock | Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Plan ‘vastly exceeds’ Heroes Act authority<\/h2>\n\nThe six states \u2014 Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina \u2014\u00a0argue in their brief that the Biden administration has overstepped its authority by moving to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for tens of millions of Americans without Congress’ authorization.<\/p>\n
The Biden administration insists that it’s acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003<\/a> grants the U.S. secretary of Education the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies (the U.S. has been operating\u00a0u<\/a>nder an emergency declaration<\/a>\u00a0since March 2020 because of the Covid pandemic<\/a>). The law is a product of the 9\/11 terrorist attacks, and an earlier version of it provided relief to federal student loan borrowers impacted by the attacks<\/a>.<\/p>\nHowever, the states counter that the Heroes Act allows the Education secretary only to modify the federal student loan system to keep certain borrowers from being in a worse-off position with their loans because of a national emergency.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\n\n\n![\"Biden](\"https:\/\/image.cnbcfm.com\/api\/v1\/image\/107150494-16681809381668180936-26522376959-1080pnbcnews.jpg?v=1668183160&w=750&h=422&vtcrop=y\")
They go on to say, in their brief, that the president’s plan “places an estimated 43 million Americans in a better position by eliminating all loan balances for 20 million and erasing up to $20,000 for over 20 million more. This vastly exceeds the Secretary’s authority under the Act.”<\/p>\n
In other words, higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz said, the states are asserting that Biden is using Covid<\/a> as an excuse to pass his plan.<\/p>\n“For example, if it was an emergency, why wait three years to provide the forgiveness?” he said. “Why present it in a political framework, as fulfilling a campaign promise?”<\/p>\n
The states also argue that Biden’s plan would cause financial harm to their states, including a loss of profits<\/a> for the companies that service federal student loans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nBorrowers deprived of ‘procedural rights’<\/h2>\n\n\n\nBoonchai Wedmakawand | Moment | Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe second legal challenge the Supreme Court will consider was backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.<\/p>\n
In its brief, the lawyers argue that two plaintiffs, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, were deprived of their “procedural rights” by the Biden administration because it didn’t allow the public to formally weigh in on the shape of its student loan forgiveness plan before it rolled it out. As a result, the lawyers argue, Brown and Taylor are either partially or fully excluded from the relief.<\/p>\n
The Heroes Act exempts the need for a notice-and-comment period during national emergencies, but, like the states, the plaintiffs in this challenge also argue that that law doesn’t authorize the president’s sweeping plan.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
How White House defends loan forgiveness<\/h2>\n
The six states \u2014 Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina \u2014\u00a0argue in their brief that the Biden administration has overstepped its authority by moving to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for tens of millions of Americans without Congress’ authorization.<\/p>\n
The Biden administration insists that it’s acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003<\/a> grants the U.S. secretary of Education the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies (the U.S. has been operating\u00a0u<\/a>nder an emergency declaration<\/a>\u00a0since March 2020 because of the Covid pandemic<\/a>). The law is a product of the 9\/11 terrorist attacks, and an earlier version of it provided relief to federal student loan borrowers impacted by the attacks<\/a>.<\/p>\n However, the states counter that the Heroes Act allows the Education secretary only to modify the federal student loan system to keep certain borrowers from being in a worse-off position with their loans because of a national emergency.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n They go on to say, in their brief, that the president’s plan “places an estimated 43 million Americans in a better position by eliminating all loan balances for 20 million and erasing up to $20,000 for over 20 million more. This vastly exceeds the Secretary’s authority under the Act.”<\/p>\n In other words, higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz said, the states are asserting that Biden is using Covid<\/a> as an excuse to pass his plan.<\/p>\n “For example, if it was an emergency, why wait three years to provide the forgiveness?” he said. “Why present it in a political framework, as fulfilling a campaign promise?”<\/p>\n The states also argue that Biden’s plan would cause financial harm to their states, including a loss of profits<\/a> for the companies that service federal student loans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Boonchai Wedmakawand | Moment | Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The second legal challenge the Supreme Court will consider was backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.<\/p>\n In its brief, the lawyers argue that two plaintiffs, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, were deprived of their “procedural rights” by the Biden administration because it didn’t allow the public to formally weigh in on the shape of its student loan forgiveness plan before it rolled it out. As a result, the lawyers argue, Brown and Taylor are either partially or fully excluded from the relief.<\/p>\n The Heroes Act exempts the need for a notice-and-comment period during national emergencies, but, like the states, the plaintiffs in this challenge also argue that that law doesn’t authorize the president’s sweeping plan.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nBorrowers deprived of ‘procedural rights’<\/h2>\n
How White House defends loan forgiveness<\/h2>\n