Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett REJECTS bid to block Biden’s student loan plan

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has rejected an emergency bid from a taxpayers group to stop President Biden’s student loan relief plan from starting on Sunday.

Barrett did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association, which also has lost rounds in lower federal courts. 

The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order to put the program on hold because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

Barrett oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states. She acted on her own, without involving the rest of the court. She also did not ask the Biden administration for a response, indicating the application did not have serious legal standing.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has rejected an emergency bid from a taxpayers group to stop President Biden’s student loan relief plan from starting on Sunday

Student loan forgiveness advocates attend a press conference on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 25 August 2022 

U.S. District Judge William Griesbach had earlier dismissed the group’s lawsuit, finding they didn’t have the legal right, or standing, to bring the case. 

A panel of appellate judges refused to step in with an emergency order.

Thus, the Biden administration is pressing forward with a plan to cancel $10,000 of student debt for federal borrowers who make under $125,000 and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients. 

In filing for an emergency injunction the group claimed the move from the Biden administration is unconstitutional, oversteps its executive powers and targets American taxpayers. 

Biden had used a 2003 federal law that allows the education secretary to alter financial assistance programs for students ‘in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.’ He argued Covid-19 was a national emergency. 

Though she did not offer a reason, Barrett likely rejected the application because the plaintiff, Brown County Taxpayers Association, did not prove they had suffered the direct injury needed to have the grounds to sue. Earlier courts have already found the taxpayer’s group did not have the standing to bring its legal challenge. None of the judges that heard the case ruled whether Biden had acted lawfully in cancelling the debt. 

The Supreme Court has said that the mere payment of taxes does not give plaintiffs the standing to sue government programs. 

But the taxpayer group said that the massive sums being paid out warranted the loosening of standing rules. 

‘We are witnessing a gargantuan increase in the national debt accomplished by a complete disregard for limitations on the constitutional spending authority,’ the association’s lawyers wrote.

They added: ‘The argument that a president may unilaterally forgive debt owed to the U.S. Treasury through executive fiat, and that no one has standing to challenge him, threatens the very foundations of a constitutional republic.’

‘If every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus,’ Justice Samuel Alito said in 2007.  

The Biden administration has been attacked from all sides over the debt forgiveness plan. Seven GOP-led states and a number of conservative legal groups have filed suit across the country. 

Over the weekend the White House rolled out a beta version of the debt forgiveness application and more than eight million people submitted requests for relief. The official application launched on Monday. 

The Congressional Budget Office last month said Biden’s ploy to wipe debt will cost the government $400 billion over 30 years and Republicans have argued it unfairly taxes Americans who haven’t been to college. 

Judge William Griesbach in Wisconsin dismissed the case without ruling on whether Biden acted lawfully, and also questioned whether an injunction would be necessary even if the challenger did have the standing. 

But, he warned, if the administration did act unlawfully, borrowers could be liable to pay back the money they’d been given. 

‘A future administration may not be bound’ by the Biden program, he wrote, ‘and may seek to collect the purportedly forgiven debts.’ 

‘Those seeking to take advantage of the program’ may want ‘to consider this possibility before placing undue reliance on the benefits promised.’