The debt of millions of American students at stake in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States examines on Tuesday a flagship measure by Joe Biden aimed at canceling part of the colossal student debt, a file with huge economic stakes and high risk for the Democratic president.

“This assistance is crucial for more than 40 million Americans recovering from the economic crisis caused by the pandemic”, tweeted Joe Biden just before the hearing, displaying his “confidence in the legality” of his plan.

“Relieving borrowers is legal” or “Crush student debt”, also proclaimed signs held up by nearly 200 demonstrators gathered in the early morning in front of the temple of American law.

Among them, Lamar Brooks, 22 and a psychiatry student, told AFP that he had already accumulated $18,000 in debt. Eligible for the Biden plan, this young African-American believes that it “could help other minorities and relieve the burden” inherited from the past.

At 10 a.m., his nine wise men began grilling the representatives of the government of Joe Biden, who poses as a defender of the middle and working classes, and the critics of this program who denounce a costly abuse of power.

Their judgment, expected before June 30, will have a direct impact on the finances of former students, but not only: the high court, firmly rooted in conservatism, could take advantage of this file to limit the president’s room for maneuver.

The judges will juggle crazy sums. Nearly 43 million Americans have federal student loans to repay for a total amount of 1630 billion dollars.

At the start of the pandemic, as the economy went into hibernation, the administration of Republican President Donald Trump suspended the repayment of these credits under a 2003 law allowing “relief” for holders of student debt in the event of of “national emergency”.

This measure has been continued without interruption until now.

At the end of August, President Biden wanted to go further: he announced that he would erase $10,000 from the slate of borrowers earning less than $125,000 a year, and $20,000 for former scholarship recipients.

The candidates rushed and 26 million applications were filed, according to the White House, which estimates the overall bill for the state at 400 billion dollars.

Justice, however, blocked the implementation of this plan after being seized by a coalition of Republican states, but also by two students not eligible for the 20,000 dollar cancellation.

They accuse the Democratic administration of having exceeded its powers on the pretext of the pandemic and of having committed taxpayers’ money without consulting parliamentarians. For them, the 2003 law covers the freezing of the debt and not its cancellation.

“The Court must again prevent the government from invoking Covid-19 to seize power far beyond what Congress could have conceived,” wrote the state of Nebraska and its allies in a statement. arguments transmitted before the hearing.

“The Minister of Education acted at the heart of his field of competence, in line with the objectives of the law” of 2003, retorted the government lawyers.

The high court has, however, already inflicted several setbacks on the Democratic administration, invalidating measures taken to block rental evictions during the pandemic or forcing certain populations to be vaccinated.

To avoid a new snub, the Democratic government argues that the plaintiffs were not entitled to take legal action since they “suffered no harm”. He asks the Court to dismiss their complaint on this basis, without ruling on the merits.

Conversely, other actors, hostile to a strong federal power, hope that the temple of American law will take advantage of this affair to clip the wings of the federal government.

“This case is timely and provides an opportunity to strengthen constitutional safeguards to prevent administrative agencies and branches of the executive from exercising legislative functions,” wrote the Chamber of Commerce, an employers’ organization, by hammering that the authorities “cannot make any important political decision without explicit authorization from Congress”.

The Supreme Court used this reasoning in June to limit the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency in its fight against global warming. If she confirms it, the government could find itself unable to act on important issues, at a time when Congress is itself paralyzed by partisan divisions.

---

Source

---