- The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on Biden's student-loan forgiveness effort.
- Several conservative justices questioned whether the plan was an overreach of executive authority.
Several of the Supreme Court's conservative justices dug into whether President Biden's student-loan forgiveness was an overreach of his executive power in a fiery and lengthy debate over the relief on Tuesday.
"We're talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans," Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments, referring to the estimated costs of Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in federal student loans and the number of affected borrowers. "How does that fit under the normal understanding of 'modifying'?"
Roberts was questioning the Biden administration's defense of the use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to cancel student debt, a federal law that grants the education secretary the ability to "waive or modify" student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, like COVID-19.
The chief justice referenced that the court has previously defined "modify" as "moderate change," and speculated whether the law's language can also be applied to broad student-loan forgiveness.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, on behalf of the Biden administration, asserted that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona acted within his power by authorizing the debt cancelation amid the COVID-19 pandemic to protect millions of borrowers who have suffered financial harm and are at risk of defaulting on their debts.
"It couldn't have surprised Congress one bit that in response to hardship posed by a national emergency, the secretary might consider similarly providing discharge if that's what it takes to make sure borrowers don't default," Prelogar told Roberts.
The questioning came as the Supreme Court reviewed one of two high-profile cases that center on whether Biden exceeded his legal authority with the debt relief and whether the parties have standing — the right to challenge the relief by showing they suffered an injury from it. In Tuesday's first case, six Republican-led states – Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri – argued the debt relief would hurt their states' tax revenues, and the revenue of a Missouri-based student-loan company, MOHELA.
The Biden administration has maintained that the states lack standing because they only claim "alleged harms" – not concrete – and that MOHELA functions as a separate entity from Missouri and can defend itself in court.
Roberts, along with some of the other conservative justices, continued to question the Biden administration's position during more than two hours of oral arguments. They repeatedly brought up the estimated costs to the federal government to enact the plan, and whether it amounts to an overreach of power.
"We take very seriously the idea of separation of powers and that power should be divided to prevent its abuse," Roberts told Prelogar. "Given the posture of the case, and given our historic concern about separation of powers, you would recognize at least that this is a case that presents extraordinarily serious, important issues about the role of Congress and about the role that we should exercise in scrutinizing that?"
Justice Neil Gorsuch, at one point, questioned what the "cost" of the plan is "in terms of fairness" to people who have paid their loans, who haven't taken out loans, or who are ineligible for loans in the first place.
Prelogar responded that Biden's plan is tailored to borrowers who would need it the most, and Cardona specifically designed the plan in that sense. The Biden administration also defended that similar to the relief, the student-loan payment pause enacted at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic that remains in place today was allowed under the secretary's authority.
Yet many of the court's conservatives questioned that comparison.
"I think that forbearance fits more comfortably in 'waive or modify' language, it's you simply forbearing on collecting an underlying debt, but you don't cancel a debt, and that's what we're talking about here," Justice Clarence Thomas told Prelogar. "And certainly, there is a cost to that, I understand."
Unlike her fellow conservatives, however, Justice Amy Coney Barrett centered most of her questioning on the issue of standing, and wondered how the states have shown they have suffered an injury to legally challenge Biden's plan.
"Do you want to address why MOHELA is not here?" she asked Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell, who's representing the states. "Why didn't the state just make MOHELA come then?"
"If MOHELA is an arm of the state, why didn't you just strong arm MOHELA and say, 'You've gotta pursue this suit'?" Barrett continued.
Campbell claimed that Missouri has the right to speak on behalf of MOHELA because of the states' interests in the case. The Supreme Court will hand down its decisions, which may determine whether Biden's plan will take effect, in the two cases by June.