Will the 2022 Loan Forgiveness hold up in court?
It must hold up as written and without major amendment of entitlement. Minor rule changes, such as being able to opt-out of receiving forgiveness does not materially affect the quantity of loan forgiveness, whereas creating stricter or looser means-testing does.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ586 | |
| 2 | Ṁ373 | |
| 3 | Ṁ262 | |
| 4 | Ṁ213 | |
| 5 | Ṁ206 |
People are also trading
The oral argument found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/22-506
Really worth listening to. The counsel convinced me!
@JohnBuridan It's really interesting, thanks for sharing it here!
Based on my interpretation, it seems like the three liberal justices and Justice Barrett don't think the states having standing to bring the case or that the executive branch has overstepped it's legislative limits and Justice Kavanaugh doesn't think that the executive branch has overstepped it's legislative limits. I believe the Court will reject the states' arguments.
The current Writ of Injunction before the supreme court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A331/243437/20221019122243877_2022-10-19%20PDFa%20BCTA%20Application%20for%20Writ%20of%20Injunction.pdf
Even Ted Cruz seems to think this is a nonstarter.
@JohnBuridan, strictly speaking this has already failed. In response to one of the early lawsuits, the Biden administration changed the program to make sure it had an opt-out provision. So it can't hold up as it existed on August 25.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/student-loan-relief-lawsuit-biden-opt-out.html
"Within days, the agency quietly changed the website to say that borrowers could “opt out” of the program—in an apparent effort to moot our challenge (and leading to our amended complaint)."
@MartinRandall I think that was one initial option. What is currently in place though is we can choose a few markets that get pinned to the tip of the trending tab. So we will probably just pin markets that have wide appeal and are related to current events/are new/are about to end..
Say what you will about the SCOTUS, you didn’t declare war on handouts to the professional managerial class; and the statute is plain as day about “national emergency” allowing this.
(notice home prices skyrocketing,
inflation, as a result of—govt policy—but stemming from Covid, certainly meets the statute’s criteria)
Whether there should be any govt support of student loans at all (almost certainly not, economically, but it’s all a handout to make the system seem “fair”), and whether it’s absurd to hand out money to college grads to buy votes, the justices won’t go near this.
@Treldman I'm not sure. Could anyone who can document that they chose a less expensive college option for debt based reasons, or who chose not to go to college, or joined the military, have standing? Could a state which took fiscal action based upon student debt obligations have standing? Perhaps a sucker... er, I mean person, who paid of their debt during the pause have standing?
@JohnBuridan None of those groups would have standing. You cannot sue the government just because you're mad at a policy you're not affected by.
@Treldman Right. I think a future administration could try to undo it, but that would be insane politically.
@Treldman I mean, that interpretation probably wouldn't hold up in court, but it's philosophically true. Forgiving student debt = shifting that debt to all American taxpayers instead of just the borrowers.
@MattP SCOTUS has already ruled before that aggrieved taxpayers generally don't have standing on matters that don't affect them:
"Generally, a federal taxpayer's interest in seeing that Treasury funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution is too attenuated to give rise to the kind of redressable 'personal injury' required for Article III standing."
-Samuel Alito in Hein v Freedom From Religion Foundation