Student loan forgiveness is essential for Bennies and Johnnies, past and present

In August 2022, President Biden announced his plan to cancel up to $10,000 of student loan debt for qualifying borrowers and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the loan cancellation program would cost the federal government about $400 billion. Even though the plan was debuted last year and nearly 26 million borrowers have applied for the program, nobody has reaped the benefits because of two separate legal challenges: one brought forward by six Republican Attorneys General and the other by two individual borrowers, who argue that the plan did not follow the correct procedural requirements that would have allowed them to advocate for a different program.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the case, which centered around if the six Attorneys General had standing, or the legal authority, to bring the case before the court and—if so—whether Biden cancelling student debt is deemed spending without Congressional approval. The standing argument focused primarily on Missouri, who claimed that their state agency, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), was negatively impacted by Biden’s loan cancellation plan. MOHELA collects student loan borrowers’ payments on behalf of the federal government and returns the servicing fees to the state. The arguments centered around whether the agency has adequately shown that they were harmed by the policy. If the states challenging Biden’s policy are determined to not have legal standing, the case won’t be decided, and the loan forgiveness will presumably be allowed to proceed.

The other argument, which questioned aspects of federal law, focuses on the principle that Presidents using executive orders are not allowed to spend money from the federal budget without prior Congressional approval. At face value, cancelling almost half a trillion dollars would almost certainly be considered spending, but the Heroes Act of 2003 challenges this assumption. The Act, originally authored after 9/11, gave the President the authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to” federal student loan programs in times of national emergency and was expanded to include the COVID pandemic.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, defended Biden’s actions as constitutional arguing that Biden was acting within the constraints of the law to avoid borrower distress. In response, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Biden’s actions went beyond the original intention of the Heroes Act, saying “we’re talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans . . . How does that fit under the normal understanding of ‘modifying?’” The current Supreme Court makeup leans strongly conservative, with six of nine justices appointed by Republican Presidents. At first impression, this may be bad news for students hoping for student loan relief, but education and legal experts agree that the plaintiff ’s lawyers appeared unprepared and that Prelogar gave a stellar courtroom argument—potentially enough to influence the thinking of two justices to gain the majority.

Although arguments were heard this week, do not expect a decision soon—in most cases, it takes nearly three months for the Court to issue an official decision and subsequent opinions. In landmark cases of particular importance, such as this, decisions are often held until the end of the Court’s term in late June. No matter which way the Supreme Court rules in this case, the resulting ripple-effect will have a significant impact on borrowers and the continually rising cost of higher education. With 95% of CSB and SJU students receiving a scholarship or grant assistance and an unknown percentage of those students holding a federal loan, it’s undoubtable that Bennies and Johnnies, past and present, could benefit from this policy.

Between 2012-2022, tuition at the colleges has risen by approximately $15,000–notable when you notice that the proposed $10,000 loan tuition wouldn’t even cover one year of this price increase. For both the financial implications of graduates and current students, and the precedent set for future generations, this case is central to the vitality of campuses.