Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases challenging the legality of President Biden’s plan to cancel student debt for millions of borrowers. The plan, which was announced in August of last year and promised to cancel as much as $20,000 in debt per borrower, has faced a number of legal challenges in the lower courts, but just two cases rose to the Supreme Court for consideration. The case is likely to be decided this June. Until then, here are four key takeaways from last week’s oral arguments:

1. Biden’s plan to cancel student debt is seemingly illegal, but he may get away with it anyway. 

The parties challenging the administration’s plans had two things to accomplish in their arguments. First, to demonstrate that they would experience damages as a result of the plan, which would give them “standing” to sue, and second, to argue the merits of the case, to show why the plan exceeds the authority given by existing legislation. To the extent that we can infer beliefs from their questioning, it seemed that at least five conservative justices were skeptical of the latter point; implying that the planned action by the White House exceeded the authority given by Congress. But, it was less clear whether the justices were convinced that the plaintiffs actually had standing to sue. Without clearing that hurdle, the constitutionality of the effort cannot even be considered.

2. If conservative justices want to strike the program down, they’ll have to go it alone. 

Prior to the hearing, there was speculation that the liberal justices might be willing to at least grant standing, although it was a dim hope that they’d go against the Administration on the merits of the case. After arguments, it’s clear that neither will happen. If conservative justices want to strike down loan forgiveness, they will have to do it themselves.

3. Weaknesses were apparent on both sides.

Conservative and liberal justices seemed to agree that the Department was sloppy in how it justified its authority to carry out the plan. The HEROES Act, which the administration leans on for its purported authority, gives the Secretary of Education the ability to waive or modify loans when certain conditions are met. But the Department was not clear on what exactly it was “waiving” vs. “modifying” in the Act, nor whether those waivers were to the law or the loans themselves. This was an apparent weak point in an otherwise impressive performance by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar who argued the case on behalf of the Biden Administration.

On the other side, the case for standing in one challenge, the one brought by six Republican-led states, was weakened by what seemed like a mistake in legal strategy or a failure to exert political pressure. One of the states involved with the case, Missouri, sued on behalf of a state loan servicer, Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), which is separately incorporated. It was clear that MOHELA would experience damages but not clear that Missouri had the ability to sue on their behalf because MOHELA’s finances are separate from the state’s. The justices were keen to know why MOHELA didn’t sue on behalf of itself, but the explanation given—“state politics”—didn’t seem satisfying to anyone.

If the outcome of the challenges is that the merits aren’t considered because the plaintiffs are determined to lack standing, then this may be seen as the missed opportunity.

4. The stakes are enormous.

If the justices fail to strike down this program, it will likely further embolden the Biden Administration, which is simultaneously pursuing changes to other debt-relief programs, continuing a years-long pause in repayment, and proposing a significantly more generous income-driven loan repayment plan. If these all succeed, the eventual cost will likely be a thirteen-digit number.

Alternatively, if the program is halted by the Court, challenges to each of these programs could gain steam. Just this week, SoFi, a private lender, announced its challenge to the payment pause. Challenges could then spread to other areas where the Biden Administration has been accused of overreaching—including the income-driven repayment proposal; other higher education policies, such as the Gainful Employment rule; K-12 education policies, such as changes to the charter school program; and even into other areas such as environmental policy or immigration. The court will likely rule on the challenges to the loan forgiveness program in June when major decisions are generally announced. Until then, we are likely to see Democrats sit tight on further reforms while the White House continues to move forward with the cancellation agenda through piecemeal regulatory change. On the other side, Republicans will be thinking about how to stop the White House, perhaps through legislation, from dismantling the student lending program even further.

The post Takeaways from the SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Loan Forgiveness appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.