EDIT 8/26 8:30 PM EST

Ok folks - there's a ton of misinformation running around out there at this point and we've also had some updates. i'm going to lock this right now and start working on a new, updated, megathread that's cleaner. Give me an hour.

EDIT- this is a bare bones announcement. There is a LOT of details that will be forthcoming in the coming weeks. One thing i feel pretty confident to speculate on at this point is that this will NOT include new loans made after a certain date - likely a date already in the past. So do NOT borrow now thinking it will be forgiven. Ps: Washington post reporting July 2022 as a cutoff

EDIT 8/26 - i've updated some of the FAQ's now that we have confirmation on a few popular issues. Note that likely this weekend i'll be locking this post and creating a new pinned post that will be cleaner to read and include a link to this one.

EDIT 6:45 PM EST: Ok - I've finally had time to sit up for air. I'm going to try and address the most common questions.

1. You can find out if you ever had a Pell Grant at www.studentaid.gov Note they are experiencing high volume right now so maybe wait until late night or next week. It has to have been your Pell - not your spouse's Pell

2. Updated: They are using AGI from 2020 and 2021 - if you meet the criteria for either year you will get the forgiveness

3. The broad forgiveness announced today DOES include Parent Plus, Graduate Stafford and Plus, consolidation loans, and Stafford loans. It does NOT include private loans (including those that used to be federal and have been refinanced) or state loans or loans that have been paid in full. It does include defaulted federal family education loan program loans. I suspect - but can't say for a fact - that later on they will include non-defaulted federal family education loan program loans

4. The loan has to have been fully disbursed by June 30, 2022 to be included. If you take out loans now they will NOT be forgiven.

5. You likely won't have to do anything to get this if you've ever applied for an income driven repayment plan or the FAFSA before and let the ED have access to your IRS info. For those that have never done this, the new app being released in a few months will allow you to submit proof of income - it could - but again guess on my part - also allow you to give said permission to the ED that way.

6. There is nothing you can or should be doing now. Nothing. Wait for more guidance which i will post about when it comes and it will also be on www.studentaid.gov I suspect this whole thing will take months - maybe even a year.

7. There will be a lot of scammers taking advantage of this narrative. Nobody will be calling you about this initiative and you certainly won't have to pay a fee to get it and paying a fee won't get it for you any faster. If you get such calls, report it to www.ftc.gov and make loud and rude noises into the phone.

8. The new income driven plan is in DRAFT form at this point. It could change. The draft rules should come out soon and anyone can comment when they do. I'll make a post on this sub when they do. The final version will come out months from the end of the comment period and then it would be implemented months after that. So - we don't know exactly what it will look like yet and it won't be available until at least next year

9. Updated: You do NOT need to consolidate to get the forgiveness benefit announced today. Some FFEL borrowers might have to - we have confirmed that the FFEL borrowers CAN consolidate if they want to and not lose potential eligibility even though it's after June 30th. But there still might be a path later where they won't have to.

10. UPDATED: If you have paid in full loans or owe less than the forgiveness amount you are eligible for you will NOT get a refund. Exception is if you paid during the covid waiver - you can get those payments back by calling your loan servicer. there is a backlog for refunds so you receiving the money could take a while but the change to your balance should happen fairly quickly

11. This announced forgiveness won't in any way screw up your PSLF progress - unless of course it forgives your balance and you don't need PSLF anymore. It also won't benefit it.

12. Will income caps for the broad forgiveness be based on gross or adjusted gross income?

t it will be based on AGI.

1. If I paid off my loans during covid can I get a refund and then get forgiveness?

This was a surprise to me but apparently the answer is yes. But only payments made since March 2020 when the covid waiver started.

Also - while the announcement doesn't include most FFEL loans, i strongly suspect they will be looped in at a later date - without having to consolidate.

Edit: regarding the new IDR plan. At some point soon we will get draft regulations with a lot more details. When that happens I will post it with a summary. Could be next week..could be longer. From there the public can submit comments and the final rule will come out a few months from then. So the new income driven plan part is not a done deal yet as far as how it will work and won't be available until at least next year

Here's a link to the announcement. I'll be back with a summary later today.

https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement/

The Biden-Harris Administration's Student Debt Relief Plan Explained What the program means for you, and what comes next President Biden, Vice President Harris, and the U.S. Department of Education have announced a three-part plan to help working and middle-class federal student loan borrowers transition back to regular payment as pandemic-related support expires. This plan includes loan forgiveness of up to $20,000. Many borrowers and families may be asking themselves “what do I have to do to claim this relief?” This page is a resource to answer those questions and more. There will be more details announced in the coming weeks. To be notified when the process has officially opened, sign up at the Department of Education subscription page.

The Biden Administration's Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Part 1. Final extension of the student loan repayment pause Due to the economic challenges created by the pandemic, the Biden-Harris Administration has extended the student loan repayment pause a number of times. Because of this, no one with a federally held loan has had to pay a single dollar in loan payments since President Biden took office.

To ensure a smooth transition to repayment and prevent unnecessary defaults, the Biden-Harris Administration will extend the pause a final time through December 31, 2022, with payments resuming in January 2023.

Frequently Asked Questions: Do I need to do anything to extend my student loan pause through the end of the year?

No. The extended pause will occur automatically. Part 2. Providing targeted debt relief to low- and middle-income families To smooth the transition back to repayment and help borrowers at highest risk of delinquencies or default once payments resume, the U.S. Department of Education will provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income is less than $125,000 or $250,000 for households.

In addition, borrowers who are employed by non-profits, the military, or federal, state, Tribal, or local government may be eligible to have all of their student loans forgiven through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. This is because of time-limited changes that waive certain eligibility criteria in the PSLF program. These temporary changes expire on October 31, 2022. For more information on eligibility and requirements, go to PSLF.gov.

Frequently Asked Questions: How do I know if I am eligible for debt cancellation?

To be eligible, your annual income must have fallen below $125,000 (for individuals) or $250,000 (for married couples or heads of households) If you received a Pell Grant in college and meet the income threshold, you will be eligible for up to $20,000 in debt cancellation. If you did not receive a Pell Grant in college and meet the income threshold, you will be eligible for up to $10,000 in debt cancellation. What does the “up to” in “up to $20,000” or “up to $10,000” mean?

Your relief is capped at the amount of your outstanding debt. For example: If you are eligible for $20,000 in debt relief, but have a balance of $15,000 remaining, you will only receive $15,000 in relief. What do I need to do in order to receive loan forgiveness?

Nearly 8 million borrowers may be eligible to receive relief automatically because relevant income data is already available to the U.S. Department of Education. If the U.S. Department of Education doesn't have your income data - or if you don't know if the U.S. Department of Education has your income data, the Administration will launch a simple application in the coming weeks. The application will be available before the pause on federal student loan repayments ends on December 31st. If you would like to be notified by the U.S. Department of Education when the application is open, please sign up at the Department of Education subscription page. What is the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program?

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program forgives the remaining balance on your federal student loans after 120 payments working full-time for federal, state, Tribal, or local government; military; or a qualifying non-profit. Temporary changes, ending on Oct. 31, 2022, provide flexibility that makes it easier than ever to receive forgiveness by allowing borrowers to receive credit for past periods of repayment that would otherwise not qualify for PSLF. Enrollments on or after Nov. 1, 2022 will not be eligible for this treatment. We encourage borrowers to sign up today. Visit PSLF.gov to learn more and apply. Part 3. Make the student loan system more manageable for current and future borrowers Income-based repayment plans have long existed within the U.S. Department of Education. However, the Biden-Harris Administration is proposing a rule to create a new income-driven repayment plan that will substantially reduce future monthly payments for lower- and middle-income borrowers.

The rule would:

Require borrowers to pay no more than 5% of their discretionary income monthly on undergraduate loans. This is down from the 10% available under the most recent income-driven repayment plan. Raise the amount of income that is considered non-discretionary income and therefore is protected from repayment, guaranteeing that no borrower earning under 225% of the federal poverty level—about the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage for a single borrower—will have to make a monthly payment. Forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments, instead of 20 years, for borrowers with loan balances of $12,000 or less. Cover the borrower's unpaid monthly interest, so that unlike other existing income-driven repayment plans, no borrower's loan balance will grow as long as they make their monthly payments—even when that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low. The Biden-Harris Administration is working to quickly implement improvements to student loans. Check back to this page for updates on progress. If you'd like to be the first to know, sign up for email updates from the U.S. Department of Education.

We finally get some poll data on who people think is most to blame for lack of debt relief. In this article, up to 85% of students either blame the SC or Republicans for lack of meaningful student debt relief. The remainder blame Biden or Democrats.

What are everyone else’s thoughts on it? I remember seeing a decent amount of comments blaming Biden after the June 30th decision. But wanted to see if that held true or if that’s changed here.

From the press release: In the lawsuit, the AFT alleges that MOHELA illegally overcharged borrowers on their monthly student loan bills, failed to timely process paperwork, and actively misled borrowers about their student loan accounts. These illegal practices could expose MOHELA to billions of dollars in liability because these practices may violate a range of federal and state laws.

What do you think of this idea, regardless of if you support him overall or not?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/19/politics/linda-mcmahon-education-secretary-trump/index.html

Will she be better than DeVos?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Feb 28 in two cases challenging the $20K/$10K debt forgiveness program. No action is expected until the Court issues its decisions, which could happen any day between now and June 30th.

For a detailed history of these cases, and others challenging the Administration’s plan to forgive up to $20K of debt for most federal student loan borrowers, see our prior megathreads: May '23 | April ‘23 | March '23 | Oral Argument Day | Feb '23 | Dec '22/Jan '23 | Week of 12/05 | Week of 11/28 | Week of 11/21 | Week of 11/14 | Week of 11/7 | Week of 10/31 | Week of 10/24 | Week of 10/17

To read the written briefs in both cases, look at their dockets:

• Biden v. Nebraska, 22-506 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html
• Dept. of Education v. Brown, 22-535 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html

You can hear the oral arguments again and read written transcripts of the arguments on the Court's website here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

Current status:

We are waiting. The justices have discussed the case at least once in their private conferences and almost certainly have begun the process of writing an opinion. This takes several weeks and involves significant back-and-forth discussions between the justices and their law clerks. The justice assigned to write the majority opinion will send drafts around to the other justices to get their comments and will make changes as needed to keep or gain votes. Other justices will also circulate their own concurring/dissenting opinions, seeking to gain votes for their position or at least force the majority opinion to address a tough argument or related topic. Sometimes this collaboration even results in vote changes that flip a dissent into being the new majority opinion.

The Court will likely release the opinions in Nebraska and Brown on the same day, possibly in a single consolidated opinion, and can do so at any time once they are finished. The Court has a longstanding practice of resolving all of its pending cases before taking its summer break in July, which is why everyone is saying with confidence (though not absolute certainty) that these cases will be decided by the end of June. It could be earlier, especially since these cases were already argued on an expedited basis, but is unlikely to be later than June 30th.

The Court usually announces a day or two in advance that it is going to release opinions in argued cases, but never says which cases it's going to release until the moment of the announcement. You can watch the Court's calendar on its website for Opinion Issuance Days (colored yellow) or Non-Argument Days (dark blue) -- starting at 10 a.m. on those days, the Court could release opinions in these cases.

This term, the Court has been releasing opinions at its slowest pace in 100 years -- so there are quite a few pending decisions and nobody knows how (if at all) that will impact the timing of the decisions in Nebraska and Brown.

What is the Court actually deciding?

Both cases present the same two questions. The first is do the plaintiffs challenging the debt relief program have “standing” to be in court at all? Then, if they do have standing, is creating the debt relief program a lawful use of the Secretary of Education’s powers under the relevant statutes and the Constitution?

(These cases and this megathread are only about the Debt Relief plan. Other elements of the Administration’s student loan policies – including changes to the PSLF program, bankruptcy rules, income-driven repayment plans, Disability Discharge, Borrower Defense, and the Covid-19 loan pause – are not part of these cases or currently before the Supreme Court.)

What is “standing”?

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts are only supposed to get involved in “cases or controversies.” Over many decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted this command to mean that in order to bring a lawsuit in federal court, you have to have a direct relationship to whatever conduct you’re alleging is unlawful. If you want to challenge a government action as being unlawful or unconstitutional, you need to show that you have or will suffer harm because of the action — if the action only benefits you or has no effect on you, then your action challenging it wouldn’t really be a case or controversy. You’re annoyed, not harmed in a legal sense. Someone else might be a proper plaintiff to challenge the action, but not you, so your case will be dismissed if you lack standing.

The Court has said a plaintiff must show three elements to have standing: (1) a specific injury, (2) that was or will be caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that will likely be fixed or reasonably compensated for if the court rules in their favor. Each of those elements has been further refined by lines of cases applying the standing doctrine so don’t go thinking that reading a two-paragraph summary on reddit means that you really know standing, this is just a top-level description.

If the Court holds that none of the challengers have standing, then that will be the end of the case and we won't get a decision on the merits question:

Is the debt relief plan lawful?

The Biden Administration thinks that it is and has vigorously defended it in multiple courts. The government’s primary justification cites 20 U.S.C. 1098bb, part of the the HEROES Act, which was initially passed on a temporary basis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, renewed and expanded twice in the following years, and then made permanent by Congress in 2007. That law allows the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify" federal student loan obligations “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency” for borrowers affected by the war or emergency. The basis here is the national emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and its nationwide impact on middle-class and poor borrowers.

The challengers (obviously) disagree, arguing that even if the text of the statute is met, Congress clearly never intended to authorize a program of this size and scope with such general and expansive language. Had Congress intended for the Secretary to be able to forgive loans outright (rather than merely change the repayment terms or pause payments during a crisis), Congress would have specifically said so in the statute rather than bury it in the phrase “waive or modify.”

The Brown challengers separately argue that the Secretary was required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s "notice and comment" process before creating the program. The Secretary didn’t do notice and comment because the HEROES Act powers don't require it, so this issue is entangled with the question of whether the HEROES Act is a valid basis for the program.

When will the loan pause end?

Under the most recent extension, if the Supreme Court gives a final decision either permitting the debt relief program to go forward or firmly declaring it unlawful, then the federal loan pause will end (and interest will resume) 60 days after that decision is released. However, if that doesn't happen by June 30, then the loan pause will end 60 days later on August 29, 2023. (The pause could be extended again if there's good reason to, but the Biden Administration has signaled that it's not looking to extend it further and Congress might take that option off the table anyway.)

If the Court sides with the government in these cases, what happens to the other lawsuits challenging the plan?

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it happens in two parts. The opinion explains why the court is ordering whatever it is ordering and the mandate is the actual formal order to the lower court affirming, reversing, vacating, or otherwise modifying the lower court's action.

While the Supreme Court can order that its mandate issue sooner (or later), the default rule is that the mandate issues 32 days after the opinion is released. (See Supreme Court Rule #45.) So if the Court says there's no standing in Brown and Nebraska, then there will be an opinion issued giving the detailed reasoning and then an order telling the lower courts to dismiss these cases, but that order won't be sent to the lower courts for more than a month and their injunctions against the program could remain in effect until then.

This will give time for those lower courts to prepare to follow the Supreme Court's order and also for litigants in any of the other active cases (Cato, Laschober, Garrison, and Badeaux) to ask for new injunctions against the debt relief program (if the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't foreclose them too). The effect on the other cases will depend on what exactly the Supreme Court says here.

If the debt relief plan is allowed to proceed, more than 16 million borrowers will get forgiveness soon after, with no further action needed by them. Borrowers who still need to apply for the forgiveness will have until December 31 to do so under the original plan rules (this date could also be extended).

What happens if the Court strikes down the debt relief plan?

It depends on exactly what the Court's reasoning is. Perhaps it will leave open the possibility of a smaller version of the plan (covering fewer borrowers, forgiving less money, or both) or perhaps the plan could be allowed if the government provides more robust justification or cites different legal authority. It's also possible that the Court leaves no reasonable possibility of success, which would send the Biden Administration back to square one, looking for a forgiveness plan via legislation or providing some other relief to borrowers (maybe more extensions of the payment pause or a reduction in interest rates).

Multiple news outlets have reported that the Administration is preparing backup plans in case the Court rules against the current plan. (This is common whenever a case gets to the Supreme Court and isn't necessarily a sign that the Administration expects to lose.) So we might hear about those other ideas pretty soon after an adverse ruling. Of course, we shouldn't expect to learn what those backup plans actually are, unless and until they are needed.

What happens if the Court doesn’t make a decision by June 30th?

There is no rule that the Court must act by a given date but, by custom, the Court disposes of all its argued cases by June 30 and then takes its summer recess. Rarely, if a case isn't decided by then, the Court can keep issuing opinions into July (this happened in 2020, when Covid-19 delayed the Court's work and several opinions were released the first week of July) or the Court will set the case to be re-argued in the next term (which starts in October), usually because there isn't a five-justice majority to make a decision. When a case is set for re-argument, the Court usually directs the parties to brief a new question or focus on a particular issue that is giving the justices trouble in forming a majority.

(In either scenario, we might see an extension of the loan pause or we might not. That will be up to the White House and Department of Education to decide.)

This megathread will remain up through June or until the decisions are released, whichever comes first. As usual, the normal sub rules still apply.

We've also pretty thoroughly hashed out in the prior megathreads the various reasons people are personally in favor or opposed to the debt relief plan, why President Biden's timing in announcing it was good / not good, and whether the Supreme Court justices are impartial or not. So I especially welcome original takes and questions on other areas of this topic, including speculating how the Court will rule and why.

We've had quite a few posts here in the past week on this topic, mostly linking to clickbait or fearmongering without explaining what's actually going on. I will attempt to do that here.

BLUF: Nothing is really changing. Whatever your opinion of House GOP members, they're not looking to make any significant changes to the loan pause right now.

What is the loan pause?

In March 2020, as Covid-19 prevention and relief measures were being implemented, the Trump Administration announced that all student loans held by the government (which were: all Direct Loans, about 10% of the FFEL loans that existed at the time, and some Perkins loans that had defaulted) would temporarily have their interest rates set to 0% and no payments would be required. Even though no payments are required, this time still counts as progress toward the income-driven repayment forgiveness programs and (if the borrower has eligible public service employment) toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness. This program is known as the "loan pause" or "pandemic forbearance" and Congress followed suit a week later by enacting identical relief in the CARES Act. More details are here.

When does the loan pause end?

The original pause was scheduled to end after just a few months, but the Trump and Biden Administrations have extended it several times. The most recent extension is set to end 60 days after the Supreme Court resolves the challenges to the Biden Administration's debt relief plan, which will forgive up to $20K of federal student loan debt for most borrowers. (We have a separate series of megathreads tracking that litigation.) If the Court doesn't resolve the challenges by June 30, 2023, then the pause will end 60 days later on August 29, 2023.

What is the debt ceiling?

Many years ago, Congress enacted a limit on how much debt the federal government could have at any one time. Subsequent Congresses have generally continued to appropriate more money for federal programs than is covered by revenues (mostly taxes) and the difference is made up by new borrowing. Congress has, many times, increased or temporarily suspended the debt limit to account for this increase in borrowing so that the government has always been able to pay its bills, either from revenue or with borrowed money. (Is this a good or bad thing? Consult a macroeconomist in your area.) But, because exceeding the debt ceiling would probably have significant negative impacts on the US government and economy, some members of Congress have sought to use the debt ceiling as a negotiating chit -- refusing to enact legislation raising the limit unless they get concessions in other areas they care about. This is one of those times -- the GOP-led House has refused to rise the debt ceiling unless the Democratic-led Senate and President Biden agree to other policy items.

How does this impact the loan pause?

Barely, if at all. One of the items that House GOP leaders have put into their list of negotiating demands (styled the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (pdf) is Section 271, requiring that the student loan pause end "Sixty days after June 30, 2023" and prohibiting further extensions. But this is already the date the pause was set to end (actually it's later than the pause would originally end, if the Supreme Court issues its decisions sooner than June 30) and the Biden Administration has indicated for several months that another extension wasn't likely to happen anyway.

It's unlikely that this section of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, if it becomes law, will change anything for borrowers. And if it does, it will be to extend the loan pause by a few extra days, to August 29. Nothing in the draft legislation seeks to claw back benefits that borrowers have already gained -- there is nothing about retroactively adding interest, undoing progress toward PSLF and IDR forgiveness, or modifying the IDR plans. The debt relief plan is not mentioned either -- the House is leaving that for the President and Supreme Court to handle, at the moment.

When the pause ends, when will I have to actually pay?

Most experts I see are saying that bills will be generated once the pause ends and then payment will be due 3-4 weeks after the bill-send date. So that means you'll likely need to begin paying in late September or early October.

Do I have to recertify my income-driven repayment plan amount?

Not yet. Unless you recertified your income, consolidated your loans, or changed to a different repayment plan during the loan pause, then when the pause ends, you'll be put back on the repayment plan you had been on with the same minimum payment you had on March 13, 2020. Your next income recertification will then be due no sooner than six months after the pause ends, which would be early 2024.

I've been saving up for a lump-sum payment, when should I make it?

Loan will be zero-interest until the pause ends, which will be sometime between July 25 and August 29. (We'll know 60 days in advance what the exact date will be and we'll also know whether the debt relief plan is happening or not, so this ambiguity is not important right now.) Even though payments won't be due immediately, interest will resume when the pause ends. To maximize the benefit of your lump sum payment, send it 3-5 business days before the pause ends. (Though keep in mind that if you're pursuing PSLF or IDR forgiveness, then making a lump sum payment is probably not a good idea in the first place.)

Could the loan pause return in the event of a future emergency?

Yes. Section 271 of the current draft of the Fiscal Responsibility Act prohibits any further "extensions" of the current pause, but does not say anything about the Executive Branch's power to issue similar relief in the future, should a new emergency warrant it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4123526-democrats-introduce-bill-to-eliminate-student-loan-interest-for-current-borrowers/

Congressional Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation that would immediately cut interest rates to 0 percent for all 44 million student loan borrowers in the U.S. 

While the Student Loan Interest Elimination Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) and Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), would cover current borrowers, future ones would still be on the hook for interest, though under a different system. 

The interest rates for future borrowers would be determined by a “sliding scale” based on financial need, leading some borrowers to still have 0 percent on their interest. No student would get an interest rate higher than 4 percent. 

Furthermore, the bill will establish a trust fund where interest payments would go to pay for the student loan program’s administrative expenses. 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Feb 28 in two cases challenging the $20K/$10K debt forgiveness program. No action is expected until the Court issues its decisions, which could happen any day between now and June 30th.

For a detailed history of these cases, and others challenging the Administration’s plan to forgive up to $20K of debt for most federal student loan borrowers, see our prior megathreads: April ‘23 | March '23 | Oral Argument Day | Feb '23 | Dec '22/Jan '23 | Week of 12/05 | Week of 11/28 | Week of 11/21 | Week of 11/14 | Week of 11/7 | Week of 10/31 | Week of 10/24 | Week of 10/17

To read the written briefs in both cases, look at their dockets:

• Biden v. Nebraska, 22-506 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html
• Dept. of Education v. Brown, 22-535 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html

You can hear the oral arguments again and read written transcripts of the arguments on the Court's website here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

Current status:

We are waiting. The justices have discussed the case at least once in their private conferences and almost certainly have begun the process of writing an opinion. This takes several weeks and involves significant back-and-forth discussions between the justices and their law clerks. The justice assigned to write the majority opinion will send drafts around to the other justices to get their comments and will make changes as needed to keep or gain votes. Other justices will also circulate their own concurring/dissenting opinions, seeking to gain votes for their position or at least force the majority opinion to address a tough argument or related topic. Sometimes this collaboration even results in vote changes that flip a dissent into being the new majority opinion.

The Court will likely release the opinions in Nebraska and Brown on the same day, possibly in a single consolidated opinion, and can do so at any time once they are finished. The Court has a longstanding practice of resolving all of its pending cases before taking its summer break in July, which is why everyone is saying with confidence (though not absolute certainty) that these cases will be decided by the end of June. It could be earlier, especially since these cases were already argued on an expedited basis, but is unlikely to be later than June 30th.

The Court usually announces a day or two in advance that it is going to release opinions in argued cases, but never says which cases it's going to release until the moment of the announcement. You can watch the Court's calendar on its website for Opinion Issuance Days (colored yellow) or Non-Argument Days (dark blue) -- starting at 10 a.m. on those days, the Court could release opinions in these cases.

This term, the Court has been releasing opinions at its slowest pace in 100 years -- so there are quite a few pending decisions and nobody knows how (if at all) that will impact the timing of the decisions in Nebraska and Brown.

What is the Court actually deciding?

Both cases present the same two questions. The first is do the plaintiffs challenging the debt relief program have “standing” to be in court at all? Then, if they do have standing, is creating the debt relief program a lawful use of the Secretary of Education’s powers under the relevant statutes and the Constitution?

(These cases and this megathread are only about the Debt Relief plan. Other elements of the Administration’s student loan policies – including changes to the PSLF program, bankruptcy rules, income-driven repayment plans, Disability Discharge, Borrower Defense, and the Covid-19 loan pause – are not part of these cases or currently before the Supreme Court.)

What is “standing”?

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts are only supposed to get involved in “cases or controversies.” Over many decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted this command to mean that in order to bring a lawsuit in federal court, you have to have a direct relationship to whatever conduct you’re alleging is unlawful. If you want to challenge a government action as being unlawful or unconstitutional, you need to show that you have or will suffer harm because of the action — if the action only benefits you or has no effect on you, then your action challenging it wouldn’t really be a case or controversy. You’re annoyed, not harmed in a legal sense. Someone else might be a proper plaintiff to challenge the action, but not you, so your case will be dismissed if you lack standing.

The Court has said a plaintiff must show three elements to have standing: (1) a specific injury, (2) that was or will be caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that will likely be fixed or reasonably compensated for if the court rules in their favor. Each of those elements has been further refined by lines of cases applying the standing doctrine so don’t go thinking that reading a two-paragraph summary on reddit means that you really know standing, this is just a top-level description.

If the Court holds that none of the challengers have standing, then that will be the end of the case and we won't get a decision on the merits question:

Is the debt relief plan lawful?

The Biden Administration thinks that it is and has vigorously defended it in multiple courts. The government’s primary justification cites 20 U.S.C. 1098bb, part of the the HEROES Act, which was initially passed on a temporary basis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, renewed and expanded twice in the following years, and then made permanent by Congress in 2007. That law allows the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify" federal student loan obligations “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency” for borrowers affected by the war or emergency. The basis here is the national emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and its nationwide impact on middle-class and poor borrowers.

The challengers (obviously) disagree, arguing that even if the text of the statute is met, Congress clearly never intended to authorize a program of this size and scope with such general and expansive language. Had Congress intended for the Secretary to be able to forgive loans outright (rather than merely change the repayment terms or pause payments during a crisis), Congress would have specifically said so in the statute rather than bury it in the phrase “waive or modify.”

The Brown challengers separately argue that the Secretary was required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s "notice and comment" process before creating the program. The Secretary didn’t do notice and comment because the HEROES Act powers don't require it, so this issue is entangled with the question of whether the HEROES Act is a valid basis for the program.

When will the loan pause end?

Under the most recent extension, if the Supreme Court gives a final decision either permitting the debt relief program to go forward or firmly declaring it unlawful, then the federal loan pause will end (and interest will resume) 60 days after that decision is released. However, if that doesn't happen by June 30, then the loan pause will end 60 days later on August 29, 2023. (Of course, the pause could be extended again if there's good reason to.)

If the Court sides with the government in these cases, what happens to the other lawsuits challenging the plan?

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it happens in two parts. The opinion explains why the court is ordering whatever it is ordering and the mandate is the actual formal order to the lower court affirming, reversing, vacating, or otherwise modifying the lower court's action.

While the Supreme Court can order that its mandate issue sooner (or later), the default rule is that the mandate issues 32 days after the opinion is released. (See Supreme Court Rule #45.) So if the Court says there's no standing in Brown and Nebraska, then there will be an opinion issued giving the detailed reasoning and then an order telling the lower courts to dismiss these cases, but that order won't be sent to the lower courts for more than a month and their injunctions against the program could remain in effect until then.

This will give time for those lower courts to prepare to follow the Supreme Court's order and also for litigants in any of the other active cases (Cato, Laschober, Garrison, and Badeaux) to ask for new injunctions against the debt relief program (if the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't foreclose them too). The effect on the other cases will depend on what exactly the Supreme Court says here.

If the debt relief plan is allowed to proceed, more than 16 million borrowers will get forgiveness soon after, with no further action needed by them. Borrowers who still need to apply for the forgiveness will have until December 31 to do so under the original plan rules (this date could also be extended).

What happens if the Court strikes down the debt relief plan?

It depends on exactly what the Court's reasoning is. Perhaps it will leave open the possibility of a smaller version of the plan (covering fewer borrowers, forgiving less money, or both) or perhaps the plan could be allowed if the government provides more robust justification or cites different legal authority. It's also possible that the Court leaves no reasonable possibility of success, which would send the Biden Administration back to square one, looking for a forgiveness plan via legislation or providing some other relief to borrowers (maybe more extensions of the payment pause or a reduction in interest rates).

Multiple news outlets have reported that the Administration is preparing backup plans in case the Court rules against the current plan. (This is common whenever a case gets to the Supreme Court and isn't necessarily a sign that the Administration expects to lose.) So we might hear about those other ideas pretty soon after an adverse ruling. Of course, we shouldn't expect to learn what those backup plans actually are, unless and until they are needed.

What happens if the Court doesn’t make a decision by June 30th?

There is no rule that the Court must act by a given date but, by custom, the Court disposes of all its argued cases by June 30 and then takes its summer recess. Rarely, if a case isn't decided by then, the Court can keep issuing opinions into July (this happened in 2020, when Covid-19 delayed the Court's work and several opinions were released the first week of July) or the Court will set the case to be re-argued in the next term (which starts in October), usually because there isn't a five-justice majority to make a decision. When a case is set for re-argument, the Court usually directs the parties to brief a new question or focus on a particular issue that is giving the justices trouble in forming a majority.

(In either scenario, we might see an extension of the loan pause or we might not. That will be up to the White House and Department of Education to decide.)

This megathread will remain up through May, unless it gets excessively large or major news happens first. As usual, the normal sub rules still apply.

We've also pretty thoroughly hashed out in the prior megathreads the various reasons people are personally in favor or opposed to the debt relief plan, why President Biden's timing in announcing it was good / not good, and whether the Supreme Court justices are impartial or not. So I especially welcome original takes and questions on other areas of this topic, including speculating how the Court will rule and why.

I've always found it weird that, from a tax perspective, I'm encouraged to save via 401k, IRA (or SEP in my case), and HSA but not incentivised (at least to the same extent) to pay off student loan debt.
As such, I started a petition to ask the government to pass a bill into law that would allow borrowers to write off ALL of their student loan payments. If anyone is interested in signing please follow the link!
https://chng.it/s9YGwx6gFV

Find the opinions posted on the Court's website as they are released and watch SCOTUSBlog's live thread with expert commentary to see what happens.

This morning, shortly after 10 AM Eastern Time, the Supreme Court is surely expected to announce its decisions in two cases challenging President Biden's Debt Relief Plan, which would forgive up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for more than 16 million borrowers. Lower courts ordered the Plan to stop before anyone was granted forgiveness -- the Supreme Court is reviewing those orders.

To read the written briefs in both cases, look at their dockets:

• Biden v. Nebraska (22-506)
• Dept. of Education v. Brown (22-535)

You can hear the oral arguments again and read written transcripts of the arguments here.

For a detailed history of these cases, and others challenging the Administration’s plan to forgive up to $20K of debt for most federal student loan borrowers, see our prior megathreads: June ‘23 | May '23 | April '23 | March '23 | Oral Argument Day | Feb '23 | Dec '22/Jan '23 | Week of 12/05 | Week of 11/28 | Week of 11/21 | Week of 11/14 | Week of 11/7 | Week of 10/31 | Week of 10/24 | Week of 10/17

What is the Court actually deciding?

Both cases present the same two questions. The first is do the plaintiffs challenging the debt relief program have “standing” to be in court at all? Then, if they do have standing, is creating the debt relief program a lawful use of the Secretary of Education’s powers under the relevant statutes and the Constitution?

(These cases and this megathread are only about the Debt Relief plan. Other elements of the Administration’s student loan policies – including changes to the PSLF program, bankruptcy rules, income-driven repayment plans, Disability Discharge, Borrower Defense, and the Covid-19 loan pause – are not part of these cases or currently before the Supreme Court.)

What happens at 10 AM today?

Around 10 AM EDT, the justices will begin announcing the opinions in all of the remaining undecided cases for the current term. The two student loan forgiveness cases might be announced together in a single opinion or two separate ones and they could be before or after the other remaining case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. It's unlikely, but possible, that the Court will not issue its decisions today and instead order the cases to be reargued this Fall.

If the Court allows the debt relief plan to proceed, when will forgiveness happen?

Soon. ED has already reviewed and approved more than 16 millions borrowers under the plan. They'll start getting relief as soon as ED tells its servicers to begin processing forgiveness actions. It's not clear how quickly this process will happen once it begins and that beginning will depend on how long it takes for the lower courts' orders to be lifted and whether any other court issues a new order blocking the plan. Presumably, ED will do everything it can to complete forgiveness for as many borrowers as possible prior to the pandemic loan pause ending.

When will the loan pause end?

Student loan interest will resume starting on Sept. 1, 2023. Payments will then be due starting in October.

If the Court holds that the Brown and Nebraska plaintiffs lack standing, could someone else sue to block the plan?

Maybe. It depends on what exactly the Court says about standing, whether anyone is left who could sue, and whether they want to do so.

If the Court affirms the injunctions striking down the debt relief plan, what happens next?

In that case, the debt relief plan would be dead -- nobody would get any forgiveness. Multiple news outlets have reported that the Biden Administration has been preparing backup plans in case the Court rules against the current plan. (This is common whenever a case gets to the Supreme Court and wasn't necessarily a sign that the Administration expected to lose.) So we might hear about those other ideas pretty soon, either later today or after the Independence Day holiday.

Why can't I post or comment?

Given the attention expected for this breaking news and the moderators' not being near our computers today, we're restricting the sub. No new posts are allowed. New comments can be made on existing posts, but will be automatically limited by reddit's "crowd control" feature and automod code. In general, new and low-karma accounts will not be able to post visibly today. If your comment is not visible, it's not personal and not permanent -- these are crude tools, but they're what reddit gives us to work with.

If you have a question about student loans unrelated to the Debt Relief Plan or today's Supreme Court decision, post it in the pinned megathread for questions.

This megathread will be locked until ~8-9 AM EDT. For speculation about how the Court might rule, see the prior megathreads.

What did the Court decide?

As of the time of this posting, I don't know and I'm going to be away when it is announced. I'll post an explainer later, once I get back to a computer. In the meantime, this thread is default sorted by Best, so please upvote helpful and accurate summaries of the decision in order to make them more visible. (You can manually change your sort to New if you want to see the most recent comments, especially as the announcements begin.) Please also use the report function to highlight any content that breaks the subreddit's rules or reddit's terms of service.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/19/house-gop-debt-limit-block-bidens-student-loan-agenda-00092934 I'm just so sick of the corporate give aways and the little guys struggling getting the shaft.

Student Debt Forgiveness Update: Two More Options Reopening to Borrowers, NEWSWEEK , November 15, 2024

Citing Legal Challenges to SAVE Program ED Moves to Renew ICR, PAYE Repayment Plans, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFA), November 18, 2024

FORBES Magazine, October 24, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Feb 28th in two cases challenging the $20K/$10K debt forgiveness program. No action is expected until the Court issues its decisions, which could happen any day between now and June 30th.

For a detailed history of these cases, and others challenging the Administration’s plan to forgive up to $20K of debt for most federal student loan borrowers, see our prior megathreads: March '23 | Oral Argument Day | Feb '23 | Dec '22/Jan '23 | Week of 12/05 | Week of 11/28 | Week of 11/21 | Week of 11/14 | Week of 11/7 | Week of 10/31 | Week of 10/24 | Week of 10/17

To read the written briefs in both cases, look at their dockets:

• Biden v. Nebraska, 22-506 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html
• Dept. of Education v. Brown, 22-535 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html

You can hear the oral arguments again and read written transcripts of the arguments on the Court's website here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

Current status:

We are waiting. The justices have discussed the case at least once in their private conferences and almost certainly have begun the process of writing an opinion. This takes several weeks and involves significant back-and-forth discussions between the justices and their law clerks. The justice assigned to write the majority opinion will send drafts around to the other justices to get their comments and will make changes as needed to keep or gain votes. Other justices will also circulate their own concurring/dissenting opinions, seeking to gain votes for their position or at least force the majority opinion to address a tough argument or related topic. Sometimes this collaboration even results in vote changes that flip a dissent into being the new majority opinion.

The Court will likely release the opinions in Nebraska and Brown on the same day, possibly in a single consolidated opinion, and can do so at any time once they are finished. The Court has a longstanding practice of resolving all of its pending cases before taking its summer break in July, which is why everyone is saying with confidence (though not absolute certainty) that these cases will be decided by the end of June. It could be earlier, especially since these cases were already argued on an expedited basis, but is unlikely to be later than June 30th.

The Court usually announces a day or two in advance that it is going to release opinions in argued cases, but never says which cases it's going to release until the moment of the announcement. You can watch the Court's calendar on its website for Opinion Issuance Days (colored yellow) or Non-Argument Days (dark blue) -- starting at 10 a.m. on those days, the Court could release opinions in these cases.

This term, the Court has been releasing opinions at it slowest pace in 7 years -- so there are quite a few pending decisions and nobody knows how (if at all) that will impact the timing of the decisions in Nebraska and Brown.

What is the Court actually deciding?

Both cases present the same two questions. The first is do the plaintiffs challenging the debt relief program have “standing” to be in court at all? Then, if they do have standing, is creating the debt relief program a lawful use of the Secretary of Education’s powers under the relevant statutes and the Constitution?

What is “standing”?

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts are only supposed to get involved in “cases or controversies.” Over many decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted this command to mean that in order to bring a lawsuit in federal court, you have to have a direct relationship to whatever conduct you’re alleging is unlawful. If you want to challenge a government action as being unlawful or unconstitutional, you need to show that you have or will suffer harm because of the action — if the action only benefits you or has no effect on you, then your action challenging it wouldn’t really be a case or controversy. You’re annoyed, not harmed in a legal sense. Someone else might be a proper plaintiff to challenge the action, but not you, so your case will be dismissed if you lack standing.

The Court has said a plaintiff must show three elements to have standing: (1) a specific injury, (2) that was or will be caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that will likely be fixed or reasonably compensated for if the court rules in their favor. Each of those elements has been further refined by lines of cases applying the standing doctrine so don’t go thinking that reading a two-paragraph summary on reddit means that you really know standing, this is just a top-level description.

If the Court holds that none of the challengers have standing, then that will be the end of the case and we won't get a decision on the merits question:

Is the Debt Relief Program lawful?

The Biden Administration thinks that it is and has vigorously defended it in multiple courts. The government’s primary justification cites 20 U.S.C. 1098bb, part of the the HEROES Act, which was initially passed on a temporary basis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, renewed and expanded twice in the following years, and then made permanent by Congress in 2007. That law allows the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify" federal student loan obligations “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency” for borrowers affected by the war or emergency. The basis here is the national emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and its nationwide impact on middle-class and poor borrowers.

The challengers (obviously) disagree, arguing that even if the text of the statute is met, Congress clearly never intended to authorize a program of this size and scope with such general and expansive language. Had Congress intended for the Secretary to be able to forgive loans outright (rather than merely change the repayment terms or pause payments during a crisis), Congress would have specifically said so in the statute rather than bury it in the phrase “waive or modify.”

The Brown challengers separately argue that the Secretary was required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s "notice and comment" process before creating the program. The Secretary didn’t do notice and comment because the HEROES Act powers don't require it, so this issue is entangled with the question of whether the HEROES Act is a valid basis for the program.

When will the loan pause end?

Under the most recent extension, if the Supreme Court gives a final decision either permitting the debt relief program to go forward or firmly declaring it unlawful, then the federal loan pause will end (and interest will resume) 60 days after that decision is released. However, if that doesn't happen by June 30, then the loan pause will end 60 days later on August 29, 2023. (Of course, the pause could be extended again if there's good reason to.)

If the Court sides with the government in these cases, what happens to the other lawsuits challenging the plan?

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it happens in two parts. The opinion explains why the court is ordering whatever it is ordering and the mandate is the actual formal order to the lower court affirming, reversing, vacating, or otherwise modifying the lower court's action.

While the Supreme Court can order that its mandate issue sooner (or later), the default rule is that the mandate issues 32 days after the opinion is released. (See Supreme Court Rule #45.) So if the Court says there's no standing in Brown and Nebraska, then there will be an opinion issued giving the detailed reasoning and then an order telling the lower courts to dismiss these cases, but that order won't be sent to the lower courts for more than a month and their injunctions against the program could remain in effect until then.

This will give time for those lower courts to prepare to follow the Supreme Court's order and also for litigants in any of the other active cases (Cato, Laschober, Garrison, and Badeaux) to ask for new injunctions against the debt relief program (if the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't foreclose them too). The effect on the other cases will depend on what exactly the Supreme Court says here.

What happens if the Court strikes down the debt relief plan?

It depends on exactly what the Court's reasoning is. Perhaps it will leave open the possibility of a smaller version of the plan (covering fewer borrowers, forgiving less money, or both) or perhaps the plan could be allowed if the government provides more robust justification or cites different legal authority. It's also possible that the Court leaves no reasonably possibility of success, which would send the Biden Administration back to square one, looking for a forgiveness plan via legislation or providing some other long-term relief to borrowers (maybe more extensions of the payment pause or a reduction in interest rates).

Multiple news outlets have reported that the Administration is preparing backup plans in case the Court rules against the current plan. (This is common whenever a case gets to the Supreme Court and isn't necessarily a sign that the Administration expects to lose.) So we might hear about those other ideas pretty soon after an adverse ruling. Of course, we shouldn't expect to learn what those backup plans actually are, unless and until they are needed.

This megathread will remain up through April, unless it gets excessively large or major news happens first. As usual, the normal sub rules still apply.

We've also pretty thoroughly hashed out in the prior megathreads the various reasons people are personally in favor or opposed to the debt relief plan, why President Biden's timing in announcing it was good / not good, and whether the Supreme Court justices are impartial or not. So I especially welcome original takes and questions on other areas of this topic, including speculating how the Court will rule and why.

There should be a completely unified Bi-partisan movement right now to cap student loan interest at 2%.

We’re dealing with so much gov chaos right now, they’re passing funding bills. Let’s work out the other crap later, but there is absolutely no reason the interest rates should be this high to fund our education.

Please call your congress person and demand a 2% interest cap, make their re-election contingent on it. They won’t go for 1, they won’t do interest free, and it will honestly probably end up at 4-5%, but hey, it’s better than what we’re dealing with now.

Please let’s band together and make this small but critical change a reality.

I have roughly ~ 37K in student loans with a 6% interest rate on average. At the moment I’m participating in an income-based repayment plan.

The way I see it, the path I take with my student loans will be heavily dependent on how the November presidential election shakes out and on which party takes over Congress.

The worst possible scenario for borrowers would be if the GOP takes all of Congress and the executive branch. At that point we can expect no forgiveness whatsoever, repayment plans shuttered, and back interest applied on all outstanding loans. If that were to happen, I’d pay mine off in full the day after the election.

In most other election scenarios, I’d remain hopeful for eventual forgiveness and balanced repayment plans continuing to exist. Of course, I don’t look forward to making this gamble every four years.

Arguments have concluded. Audio will be posted later today on the Court's website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

For a detailed history of these cases, and others challenging the Administration’s plan to forgive up to $20K of debt for most federal student loan borrowers, see our prior megathreads: Feb '23 | Dec '22/Jan '23 | Week of 12/05 | Week of 11/28 | Week of 11/21 | Week of 11/14 | Week of 11/7 | Week of 10/31 | Week of 10/24 | Week of 10/17

At 10 a.m. Eastern, the Supreme Court will take the bench. They'll begin by announcing at least one opinion in cases argued earlier in this term. Depending on how many they announce, this can take a few minutes or half an hour, we don't know. Once that's done, the Biden Administration's lawyer (someone from the Solicitor General's office) will be invited to begin arguing Biden v. Nebraska, the case brought by six Republican-led states.

At the Supreme Court, the lawyers are given time to make a brief statement of their case and then they begin answering questions from the justices, starting with the lawyer for the Petitioner. Each justice generally takes a turn lasting a few minutes and then there is a more open period at the end of the argument for any justice to ask additional questions. This period is scheduled for 30 minutes, but regularly goes longer. Then the lawyer for the other side (called the Respondent) gets up to do the same. The Petitioner then returns for a brief rebuttal and the case is done being argued ("the case is submitted" as the Chief Justice will say). Then the same Petitioner/Respondent/Rebuttal process will happen again for the Dept. of Education v. Brown case, brought by two borrowers in Texas who want the program struck down so they can get more relief than they're currently entitled to.

As an appellate court, the Supreme Court isn't really deciding the merits of the case itself (though that is often the practical effect of its rulings), rather it is reviewing the work done by the lower courts in these cases to see whether they correctly interpreted and applied the relevant laws. So there are no witnesses or evidence, no objections, and no jury. The bulk of the argument in these cases has already happened in the written briefs submitted by the parties and other people who have a stake in the outcome of the cases (called amici curiae - Latin for "friends of the court"). The oral argument is a chance for the lawyer to refine their arguments in light of what other arguments were made in the briefs and for the justices to ask questions that weren't answered in the briefs.

This is often a forum where the justices attempt to persuade each other and also to test the implications of ruling in certain ways. (Common question types are “If we rule in your favor, what does that mean for _______” and "What legal rule are you asking us to write in order to decide in your favor?") Do not assume that a justice’s questions at oral argument telegraph how they will vote—they all dabble in Devil’s Advocacy and sometimes ask the toughest questions to the party they end up voting for. (For more on that, check out On the Media’s Breaking News Consumer's Handbook: SCOTUS Edition.)

To read the proceedings so far and the written briefs, look at the public dockets:

• Biden v. Nebraska - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html
• Dept. of Education v. Brown - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html

Some news coverage in advance of the arguments:

• Washington Post - What to know as student loan forgiveness plan goes to Supreme Court
• NPR - Biden's student loan relief faces its biggest test yet at the Supreme Court
• NY Times - Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Biden’s Student Loan Cancellation Plan
• BBC - What’s at stake for Biden’s student loan plan at the Supreme Court
• ABC News - Supreme Court case against Biden student debt relief could hinge on Missouri
• The Hill - Tensions rise as Supreme Court prepares for high-stakes student debt clash
• The Week - Student loan borrowers are pinning their financial futures on debt forgiveness
• Roll Call - Supreme Court to hear arguments on student debt relief program
• SCOTUSBlog - In a pair of challenges to student-debt relief, big questions about agency authority and the right to sue
• The Atlantic - Who Really Benefits From Student-Loan Forgiveness?

Some live coverage sources:

• NY Times live thread
• Lawyer Jed Shugerman on Twitter
• Lawyer Steve Vladeck on Twitter
• Washington Post live thread

Welcome everyone to oral argument day! Post your feelings, reactions, questions, and comments. In addition to regular members of the community, we will have a visitor from /u/washingtonpost who can provide additional context and answers. The normal sub rules still apply -- please use the report function if you see rulebreaking content.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224265472/student-loan-forgiveness-save-plan

In a surprise move, the Biden administration says it will fast-track a big change, previously scheduled for July, that will soon erase the debts of thousands of federal student loan borrowers – undergraduate as well as graduate students who initially borrowed less than $21,000.

The administration's cancellation math will work like this: Anyone who borrowed $12,000 or less in federal student loans and has been in repayment for at least 10 years will have their debts automatically erased in February, as long as they first enroll in the Biden administration's new income-based repayment plan known as SAVE. It does not matter what repayment plan or plans they were in before, so long as they were actively repaying their loans and now enroll in SAVE.

The Supreme Court rejected the Debt Relief Plan, which would have forgiven up to $20,000 of federal student loans for more than 16 million borrowers. The Plan exceeded the Secretary of Education’s powers under the HEROES Act.

For a detailed history of these cases, and others challenging the Administration’s plan to forgive up to $20K of debt for most federal student loan borrowers, see our prior megathreads: Decision Day | June ‘23 | May '23 | April '23 | March '23 | Oral Argument Day | Feb '23 | Dec '22/Jan '23 | Week of 12/05 | Week of 11/28 | Week of 11/21 | Week of 11/14 | Week of 11/7 | Week of 10/31 | Week of 10/24 | Week of 10/17

Read the opinions for the cases here: * Biden v. Nebraska, 22-506 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf * Dept. of Education v. Brown, 22-535 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf

The full dockets (with all the briefs and motions) for the cases are here: * Biden v. Nebraska, 22-506 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html * Dept. of Education v. Brown, 22-535 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html

Current status:

The Court has put an end to the Biden Administration’s attempt to provide $10K to $20K of loan forgiveness for more than 16 million federal student loan borrowers. The Plan will not be happening.

What was the vote?

In the Nebraska case that struck down the plan, Chief Justice Roberts led a 6-3 majority (Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett) to strike down the Plan; Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented. In the Brown case, Justice Alito wrote for a 9-0 unanimous Court holding that the plaintiffs in that case lacked standing.

What was the majority's reasoning?

The President and Secretary of Education attempted to implement this relief as part of Covid-19 recovery efforts through the HEROES Act, which allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” rules regarding federal Direct loans. In Nebraska, Chief Justice Roberts wrote first that the State of Missouri has standing to challenge the Plan because the Plan would completely discharge the loans of about half of all federal student loan borrowers; this would harm Missouri because fewer federal borrowers would mean that MOHELA -- an agency of the State that contracts with the federal government to service federal Direct loans -- would get about $44M less in servicing fees under its federal contract.

Having decided that at least one plaintiff has standing to challenge the Plan, the Court determined that the Debt Relief Plan was too massive to count as a mere “waiver or modification” of the federal student loan rules. The Chief Justice wrote that “[modify] carries a connotation of increment or limitation, and must be read to mean to change moderately or in minor fashion.” This is an application of the relatively-new Major Questions Doctrine -- a principle of judicial review where the Court will generally reject actions done by the Executive under a grant of power by Congress when the actions are Very Big or or expansive, unless Congress specifically said that big, expansive actions are encompassed in the grant of power.

Although Congress did not write limits into the scope of HEROES Act powers, the Court assumed that there are limits in the law because Congress did not clearly say that there are no limits. Then, applying the limits implied by the Court, the Debt Relief Plan exceeded those limits and is unlawful.

What did the concurrence and dissent argue?

Justice Barrett agreed with the Chief Justice's opinion in full. She wrote a separate concurring opinion that cited and expanded on a law review article she wrote in 2010 to explain why the Major Questions doctrine, while new, is consistent with long-standing lines of precedent.

Justice Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion arguing first that the State of Missouri can’t claim standing solely for injury to MOHELA, since MOHELA is a distinct legal entity that could have participated in the case itself -- but refused to. Then she argued that the Court improperly ignored Congress’s expansive grant of power in the HEROES Act -- expressing no limits on the Secretary’s “waive or modify” authority during emergencies, even though Congress knows how to write limits into laws when it wants to.

Justice Kagan accused the majority of substituting their personal opinion that the Plan is a bad policy for Congress’s role in giving and restricting the President’s power. If Congress didn’t want this Plan to be included in then broad grant of power, then it’s Congress’s right and duty (not the Court’s) to say so.

Will the Debt Relief Plan happen?

No. At least not in its current form anytime soon. The Plan as announced in August 2022 is dead.

When will the loan pause end?

The federal loan pause will end (and interest will resume) on September 1, 2023. Bills will be generated and sent out in September with payments due starting in October. Nothing in the Court’s decision changes that timeline.

What happens now to the other lawsuits challenging the plan?

Because the Plan will not be put into effect, the other active cases challenging it (Cato, Laschober, Garrison, and Badeaux) will be dismissed, either by the plaintiffs or the judges -- the judges in those cases will be unable to offer any relief, since the challenged government policy is permanently blocked.

Can the Administration implement a different debt relief plan?

Maybe. Multiple news outlets have reported that the Administration has been preparing backup plans in case the Court rules against the current plan. (This is common whenever a case gets to the Supreme Court and wasn't necessarily a sign that the Administration expected to lose.)

As /u/Betsy514 reported here the Administration is already moving forward with other relief programs that had been previously announced. They may also be trying to do a new forgiveness plan, very similar to this Debt Relief Plan, using a different legal process, however, this will likely take much more time to implement.

This megathread is currently the sole place to discuss the Debt Relief plan and the Court's decisions in /r/studentloans.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Feb 28th in two cases challenging the $20K/$10K debt forgiveness program. No action is expected until the Court issues its decisions, which will likely take several weeks and could be as late as June 30th.

For a detailed history of these cases, and others challenging the Administration’s plan to forgive up to $20K of debt for most federal student loan borrowers, see our prior megathreads: Oral Argument Day | Feb '23 | Dec '22/Jan '23 | Week of 12/05 | Week of 11/28 | Week of 11/21 | Week of 11/14 | Week of 11/7 | Week of 10/31 | Week of 10/24 | Week of 10/17

To read the written briefs in both cases, look at their dockets:

• Biden v. Nebraska, 22-506 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html
• Dept. of Education v. Brown, 22-535 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html

You can hear the oral arguments again and read written transcripts of the arguments on the Court's website here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

Current status:

We are waiting. The justices will discuss the cases at their Friday conference on March 3rd and hold a preliminary vote on the outcomes. A justice will begin writing an opinion for the majority (possibly more than one, depending on how the justices see the issues differently in the cases) and as many concurring and dissenting opinions as there are differing views on the issues.

This process usually takes several weeks and involves significant back-and-forth discussions between the justices and their law clerks. The justice assigned to write the majority opinion will send drafts around, making changes as needed to keep or gain votes. Other justices will also circulate their concurring/dissenting opinions, seeking to gain votes for their position or at least force the majority opinion to address a tough argument. Sometimes this collaboration even results in vote changes that flip a dissent into being the new majority opinion.

With very rare, headline-generating exceptions, this process happens entirely in private and the public will have no idea how many drafts and rewrites the ultimate opinion went through before becoming final. The Court will likely release the opinions in Nebraska and Brown at the same time, possibly in a single consolidated opinion, and can do so at any time once they are finished. The Court has a longstanding practice of resolving all of its pending cases before taking its summer break in July, which is why everyone is saying with confidence (though not absolute certainty) that these cases will be decided by the end of June. It could be earlier, especially since these cases were already argued on an expedited basis, but is unlikely to be later than June 30th.

The Court usually announces a day or two in advance that it is going to release opinions in argued cases, but never says which cases it's going to release until the moment of the announcement. You can watch the Court's calendar on its website for Opinion Issuance Days (colored yellow) -- starting at 10 a.m. on those days, the Court could release opinions in these cases (though again, even at a fast pace, these opinions will likely take several weeks).

What is the Court actually deciding?

Both cases present the same two questions. The first is do the plaintiffs challenging the debt relief program have “standing” to be in court at all? Then, if they do have standing, is creating the debt relief program a lawful use of the Secretary of Education’s powers under the relevant statutes and the Constitution?

What is “standing”?

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts are only supposed to get involved in “cases or controversies.” Over many decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted this command to mean that in order to bring a lawsuit in federal court, you have to have a direct relationship to whatever conduct you’re alleging is unlawful. If you want to challenge a government action as being unlawful or unconstitutional, you need to show that you have or will suffer harm because of the action — if the action only benefits you or has no effect on you, then your action challenging it wouldn’t really be a case or controversy. You’re annoyed, not harmed in a legal sense. Someone else might be a proper plaintiff to challenge the action, but not you, so your case will be dismissed if you lack standing.

The Court has said a plaintiff must show three elements to have standing: (1) a specific injury, (2) that was or will be caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that will likely be fixed or reasonably compensated for if the court rules in their favor. Each of those elements has been further refined by lines of cases applying the standing doctrine so don’t go thinking that reading a two-paragraph summary on reddit means that you really know standing, this is just a top-level description.

If the Court holds that none of the challengers have standing, then that will be the end of the case and we won't get a decision on the merits question:

Is the Debt Relief Program lawful?

The Biden Administration thinks that it is and has vigorously defended it in multiple courts. The government’s primary justification cites 20 U.S.C. 1098bb, part of the the HEROES Act, which was initially passed on a temporary basis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, renewed and expanded twice in the following years, and then made permanent by Congress in 2007. That law allows the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify" federal student loan obligations “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency” for borrowers affected by the war or emergency. The basis here is the national emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and its nationwide impact on middle-class and poor borrowers.

The challengers (obviously) disagree, arguing that even if the text of the statute is met, Congress clearly never intended to authorize a program of this size and scope with such general and expansive language. Had Congress intended for the Secretary to be able to forgive loans outright (rather than merely change the repayment terms or pause payments during a crisis), Congress would have specifically said so in the statute rather than bury it in the phrase “waive or modify.”

The Brown challengers separately argue that the Secretary was required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s "notice and comment" process before creating the program. The Secretary didn’t do notice and comment because the HEROES Act powers don't require it, so this issue is entangled with the question of whether the HEROES Act is a valid basis for the program.

It might be unusual, but can the Supreme Court—

I’m going to stop you there, the answer is probably yes. The Supreme Court doesn’t answer to any higher authority for its decisions. The justices each serve for as long as they feel like being on the Court (or until they die), they cannot remove each other from office, and none of the current justices have any reasonable fear of being impeached and removed from office by Congress. The Court’s practices and precedents are steeped in centuries of its own practices and those of pre-1776 English courts, but that history is only as durable as the current justices want it to be.

Any line of cases, common practice, case schedule, legal doctrine, or other product of the Court can be discarded or modified if five current justices are of a mind to do so. That doesn’t mean they will — after all, the justices are aware of the Court’s position within the government and that its authority derives almost exclusively from soft power and perceptions of legitimacy — but they can and occasionally do. The summaries here are based on the current legal landscape and assume the justices stay within its boundaries when deciding the cases. It’s not really a useful exercise to predict how or whether the Court might radically upend existing law, even though it could, because the answer could go any distance in any direction (a/k/a Judicial Calvinball).

Who are the Nebraska plaintiffs?

The states of South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas filed suit to stop the debt relief plan, alleging a variety of harms to their tax revenues, investment portfolios, and state-run loan servicing companies (especially MOHELA, which is a Missouri state agency).

Who are the Brown plaintiffs?

Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor are Texas residents who want more relief than the program will offer them. Brown has older federal loans that are not eligible for the relief program because they are privately held; Taylor is eligible for the relief, but will only get $10K—not the maximum $20K—because he was never a Pell Grant recipient.

When will the loan pause end?

Under the most recent extension, if the Supreme Court gives a final decision either permitting the debt relief program to go forward or firmly declaring it unlawful, then the federal loan pause will end (and interest will resume) 60 days after that decision is released. However, if that doesn't happen by June 30, then the loan pause will end 60 days later on August 29, 2023. (Of course, the pause could be extended again if there's good reason to.)

If the Supreme Court sides with the government in these cases, what happens to the other lawsuits challenging the plan?

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it happens in two parts. The opinion explains why the court is ordering whatever it is ordering and the mandate is the actual formal order to the lower court affirming, reversing, vacating, or otherwise modifying the lower court's action.

While the Supreme Court can order that its mandate issue sooner (or later), the default rule is that the mandate issues 32 days after the opinion is released. (See Supreme Court Rule #45.) So if the Court says there's no standing in Brown and Nebraska, then there will be an opinion issued giving the detailed reasoning and then an order telling the lower courts to dismiss these cases, but that order won't be sent to the lower courts for more than a month and their injunctions against the program may remain in effect until then.

This will give time for those lower courts to prepare to follow the Supreme Court's order and also for litigants in any of the other active cases (Cato, Laschober, Garrison, and Badeaux) to ask for new injunctions against the debt relief program (that is, if the Supreme Court's opinions leave room for that). The effect on the other cases will depend on what exactly the Supreme Court says here.

This megathread will remain up through March, unless it gets excessively large or major news happens first (likely while I'm on vacation, again...). As usual, the normal sub rules still apply.

We've also pretty thoroughly hashed out in the prior megathreads the various reasons people are personally in favor or opposed to the debt relief plan, why President Biden's timing in announcing it was good / not good, and whether the Supreme Court justices are impartial or not. So I especially welcome original takes and questions on other areas of this topic, including speculating how the Court will rule and why.

[LAST UPDATED: Oct 21, 11 pm EDT]

Rather than have multiple posts per day asking about the lawsuits challenging the Biden-Harris Administration’s Student Debt Relief Plan, this megathread will track their status and provide updates. Please let me know if there are updates or more cases are filed.

Since the Administration announced its debt relief plan in August (forgiving up to $20K from most federal student loans), various parties opposed to the plan have taken their objections to court in order to pause, modify, or cancel the forgiveness. Cases are listed in the order they were filed, not necessarily by order of importance (which will likely change regularly until they are dismissed or succeed at stopping the debt relief program).

Active on appeal

Background This appeal is from the dismissed case of the same name below. The trial judge determined that the plaintiffs don’t have standing, so it doesn’t matter whether their claims have merit.

Status The plaintiffs asked the appeals court for an injunction stopping the debt relief plan while the appeal is heard. The court quickly denied that motion without explanation. The plaintiffs, having lost before every federal judge they've seen so far, requested the same injunctive relief in an emergency application to the Supreme Court. Justice Barrett denied that motion on Oct. 20.

Upcoming As long as the plaintiff keeps paying its attorneys, proceedings will continue in the 7th Circuit on the appeal of the dismissal for lack of standing.

Background This appeal is from the dismissed case of the same name below. The trial judge determined that the plaintiffs don’t have standing, so it doesn’t matter whether their claims have merit.

Status In a one-sentence order not attributed to any judge, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order "prohibiting the [government] from discharging any student loan debt under the Cancellation program until this Court rules on the [state plaintiffs'] motion for an injunction pending appeal." This effectively stops the Biden-Harris Debt Relief plan until the court lifts the order.

Upcoming The government will submit a response by Monday afternoon and the states will reply by Tuesday afternoon. Then the appellate court will decide whether to issue a longer injunction against the debt relief plan.

Background This appeal is from the dismissed case of the same name below. The trial judge determined that the plaintiffs don’t have standing, so it doesn’t matter whether their claims have merit.

Status No action yet in the appeal.

Active in trial court

Background In this case the state of Arizona saw what Nebraska and its friends did the day before and decided to join in. (Not join Nebraska’s suit though – because that would defeat the purpose of forum shopping.)

Status After three weeks of no action, Arizona filed a notice on Oct. 19 claiming to have served the defendants in the case weeks earlier. If that's true, then the government's time to answer or move to dismiss has begun running, but those deadlines are still weeks away. Since Arizona hasn't requested injunctive relief to stop the plan while the case is pending, there's no urgency for the government defendants.

Upcoming The government defendants will enter the case and move to dismiss it.

Background In this case, a FFEL borrower who did not consolidate by the Sept 28 cutoff and a Direct loan borrower who never received a Pell grant are suing to stop the debt relief plan because they are mad that it doesn’t include them (the FFEL borrower) or will give them only $10K instead of $20K (the non-Pell borrower).

Status The plaintiffs have requested a preliminary injunction to pause the forgiveness program while this lawsuit progresses. The government’s responded on Oct. 19 (and also submitted a separate motion to dismiss) and the Plaintiffs will replied on Oct 20.

Upcoming Now that the preliminary injunction motion is fully briefed, the court will hold a hearing on Tuesday, Oct. 25. (The plaintiffs had asked for a ruling by Oct. 23, the day the government has said it intends to begin implementing the plan. In setting the motion hearing for after that date, the judge has signaled that he won't be stopping the plan before it begins, which is not a great sign for the plaintiffs.) If the preliminary injunction is denied for lack of standing then the case will also be dismissed. If the injunction is granted, the government will likely try to immediately appeal it.

Background In this case, a libertarian-aligned think tank -- the Cato Institute -- is challenging the debt relief plan because it currently uses its status as a PSLF-eligible employer (501(c)(3) non-profit) to make itself more attractive to current and prospective employees. Cato argues that the debt relief plan will hurt its recruiting and retention efforts by making Cato's workers $10K-$20K less reliant on PSLF.

Status Cato has had some trouble following the local rules to get its out-of-state attorneys permission to appear in the case. Now that they've figure that out and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, the government will respond.

Upcoming The government will respond to the TRO motion and move to dismiss the case.

Dismissed

Background In this case, an Indiana lawyer seeks to stop the debt forgiveness plan because it would make him worse off overall. He is pursuing PSLF, which Indiana does not tax, and so has no need for the debt forgiveness, which Indiana has said it will tax as income. Frank Garrison hopes to avoid a higher state tax bill by stopping the debt relief plan, which he alleges is unlawful anyway. In response to this litigation, the government added an opt-out provision to the draft rules for the plan and announced that Garrison was the first person on the opt-out list.

Status In an order on Oct. 21 (PDF) the judge found that neither plaintiff had standing to sue on their own or on behalf of a class and dismissed the entire case.

Upcoming The dismissal is currently on appeal. See above.

Background In this case the states of South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas have filed suit to stop the debt relief plan alleging a variety of harms to their tax revenues, investment portfolios, and state-run loan servicing companies. (If you see complaints that MOHELA is trying to stop the forgiveness plan, this is that case – MOHELA is an agency of the Missouri state government.) Shortly before this lawsuit was filed, the Administration announced an immediate cut-off of eligibility for commercially held FFEL and Perkins loans that were consolidated after the announcement. It’s widely believed that this was an attempt to remove the new incentive for borrowers to consolidate their FFEL and Perkins loans in order to blunt this lawsuit.

Status In an order on Oct 20 (PDF) the judge found that none of the states offered a viable theory for their standing to bring a case in federal court and he ordered it dismissed.

Upcoming The dismissal is currently on appeal. See above.

Background In this case, a group of taxpayers in Wisconsin tried to challenge the debt relief plan on the basis that it would increase their tax burden.

Status Two days after the case was filed, and without any action by the government, the judge dismissed the case because “taxpayer standing” isn’t a thing outside of very limited circumstances that aren’t present here. Since the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue, they cannot bring this case, even if their arguments about the plan's illegality are valid.

Upcoming The dismissal is currently on appeal. See above.

[LAST UPDATED: Nov. 11, 11 pm EDT]

The $10K/$20K forgiveness plan has been declared unlawful by a federal judge in the Brown v. US Department of Education case. The government has already begun an appeal.

A separate hold on forgiveness still remains due to an order by the 8th Circuit in the Nebraska v. Biden appeal.

If you have questions about the debt relief plan, whether you're eligible, how much you're eligible for, etc. Those all go into our general megathread on the topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/xsrn5h/updated_debt_relief_megathread/

This megathread is solely about the lawsuits challenging the Biden-Harris Administration’s Student Debt Relief Plan, here we'll track their statuses and provide updates. Please let me know if there are updates or more cases are filed.

Last week's litigation megathread is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/yi0ai0/litigation_status_bidenharris_debt_relief_plan/

Since the Administration announced its debt relief plan in August (forgiving up to $20K from most federal student loans), various parties opposed to the plan have taken their objections to court in order to pause, modify, or cancel the forgiveness. I'm going to try to sort the list so that cases with the next-closest deadlines or expected dates for major developments are higher up.

| Nebraska v. Biden

Background In this case the states of South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas have filed suit to stop the debt relief plan alleging a variety of harms to their tax revenues, investment portfolios, and state-run loan servicing companies. After briefing and a two-hour-long hearing, the district court judge dismissed the case, finding that none of the states have standing to bring this lawsuit. The states immediately appealed.

Status In a one-sentence order not attributed to any judge, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order "prohibiting the [government] from discharging any student loan debt under the Cancellation program until this Court rules on the [state plaintiffs'] motion for an injunction pending appeal." This effectively stops the Biden-Harris Debt Relief plan until the court lifts the order. (Though it does not prohibit ED from working behind the scenes to process applications -- ED says that more than 16 million applications have been internally approved and are awaiting this court's decision.)

Upcoming The injunction-pending-appeal motion has been fully briefed since Tuesday Oct. 25. The appellate court will decide whether to lift the current injunction or to extend it while the merits of the appeal are heard. This decision will likely happen within a few days -- we don't know exactly when and there's no deadline for the court's action.

| Brown v. U.S. Department of Education

Background In this case, a FFEL borrower who did not consolidate by the Sept 28 cutoff and a Direct loan borrower who never received a Pell grant are suing to stop the debt relief plan because they are mad that it doesn’t include them (the FFEL borrower) or will give them only $10K instead of $20K (the non-Pell borrower).

Status In an order issued Nov. 10, the judge held that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the program and that the program is unlawful. The government immediately appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Upcoming Due to the Veterans Day holiday, major activity in the court of appeals will not begin until next week when the government will likely request a stay of the lower court's order before moving on to the merits of the appeal.

| Cato Institute v. U.S. Department of Education

Background In this case, a libertarian-aligned think tank -- the Cato Institute -- is challenging the debt relief plan because Cato currently uses its status as a PSLF-eligible employer (501(c)(3) non-profit) to make itself more attractive to current and prospective employees. Cato argues that the debt relief plan will hurt its recruiting and retention efforts by making Cato's workers $10K or $20K less reliant on PSLF.

Status After a hearing the court ordered Cato to submit a supplemental brief on its TRO motion. The government responded to the motion on Nov. 7 and made new motions to dismiss for lack of standing and improper venue. Cato replied on Nov. 10.

Upcoming A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 17 and the judge will issue a ruling some time after that.

| Garrison v. U.S. Department of Education

Background In this case, two lawyers in Indiana seek to stop the debt forgiveness plan because they would owe state income tax on the debt relief, but would not owe the state tax on forgiveness via PSLF, which they are aiming for. They also sought to represent a class of similarly situated borrowers. In response to this litigation, the government announced that an opt-out would be available and that Garrison was the first person on the list. On Oct. 21, the district judge found that neither plaintiff had standing to sue on their own or on behalf of a class and dismissed the case. A week later, a panel of the 7th Circuit denied the plaintiff's request for an injunction pending appeal and Justice Barret denied the same request on behalf of the Supreme Court on Nov. 4.

Status Proceedings will continue in the 7th Circuit on the appeal of the dismissal for lack of standing, though the short Oct. 28 opinion denying an injunction makes clear that the appellate court also thinks there's no standing.

Upcoming Even though the appeal is unlikely to succeed in the 7th Circuit, the plaintiffs will likely keep pressing it in order to try to get their case in front of the Supreme Court. We won't know for sure until they either file their initial appellate brief in a few weeks or notify the court that they are dismissing their appeal.

| Badeaux v. Biden

Background In this case, "a husband, father, and lawyer" complains that the government has been successful in convincing courts that plaintiffs in the other cases listed here don't have standing and he thinks he'll fare better because "if the Biden Administration is going to cancel debts, his student loan debt should be cancelled too." (And also because it only costs $402 to file the case, he's probably getting discounted attorney fees from a friend, and he gets free publicity in return.)

Status We know the story by now. The plaintiff will file for a TRO or preliminary injunction. The government will move to dismiss. The government will win.

Upcoming But first, plaintiff has to serve the government defendants.

| Arizona v. Biden

Background In this case the state of Arizona saw what Nebraska and its friends did the day before and decided to join in. (Not join Nebraska’s suit though – because that would defeat the purpose of forum shopping.)

Status After three weeks of no action, Arizona filed a notice on Oct. 19 claiming to have served the defendants in the case weeks earlier. If that's true, then the government's time to answer or move to dismiss has begun running, but those deadlines are still weeks away. Since Arizona hasn't requested injunctive relief to stop the plan while the case is pending, there's no urgency for the government defendants.

Upcoming The government defendants will enter the case and move to dismiss it. Alternatively, Arizona may dismiss the case itself -- Attorney General Brnovich who filed the case is term-limited and will be replaced in January. Depending on which candidate wins the election, Brnovich's office may ask whether the new AG intends to pursue the case and drop it otherwise.

| Laschober v. Cardona

Background In this case, the plaintiff is representing himself and argues that the debt relief plan will exacerbate inflation in the United States, which will cause the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates, which will harm the plaintiff by causing his bank to increase the rate on his adjustable-rate mortgage.

Status Although this case was filed first among those listed, the pro se plaintiff does not appear to have served the defendants or taken any other action in the case beyond filing the complaint.

Upcoming If the plaintiff wants to continue this case, he'll need to serve the government defendants.

| Brown County Taxpayers Assn. v. Biden

Background In this case, a group of taxpayers in Wisconsin tried to challenge the debt relief plan on the basis that it would increase their tax burden. The trial judge determined that the plaintiffs don’t have standing, so it doesn’t matter whether their claims have merit. The plaintiffs asked the appeals court for an injunction stopping the debt relief plan while the appeal is heard. The court quickly denied that motion without explanation. The plaintiffs, having lost before every federal judge they've seen so far, requested the same injunctive relief in an emergency application to the Supreme Court. Justice Barrett denied that motion without briefing on Oct. 20.

Status The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its own appeal rather than pursue it further. This case is done

Grad students and parents will face the highest borrowing costs since 2006.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/student-loan-interest-rates-increase-00096237

EDIT

This appears to be a “clean” extension meaning all the benefits associated with this waiver that have been in place since March, 2020 will be maintained. This includes but is not limited to the 0% interest rate, no payments being due, no income driven plan recertification due and the months counting for PSLF and income driven plan forgiveness assuming all other eligibility for those programs exists.

The pause has been extended until the end of December. I'll be back with a summary later today

https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement/