Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

New Delhi: The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday said it will hear on September 17 the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm BYJU's and approved its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bcci" source="keywords">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by a battery of lawyers that the plea be heard urgently keeping in mind the subsequent developments in the case. The plea was mentioned by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. The submission was supported by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, and senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for the ed-tech firm. Kaul said another plea in the case has also been filed and that is listed for hearing on September 17 and hence, the present plea be either heard on that day or the hearings in both the cases be advanced to this Friday. "We will hear both the pleas on September 17," the CJI said. Senior advocate Shayam Divan, appearing for the US-based creditor, said let the matters be heard together on September 17. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the <keyword id="19902197" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-company-law-tribunal" source="keywords">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword> (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's.

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday agreed to list for an early hearing the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLAT" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed <keyword id="19965539" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="insolvency-proceedings" source="keywords">insolvency proceedings</keyword> against ed-tech firm <keyword id="19958178" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Byjus" source="keywords">BYJU's</keyword> and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BCCI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BCCI" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. Kaul said, "The only funding was done by the promoters and today no one has brought any external borrowing. We have to show today how malafide the petition (of US firm) is." "I will get it listed as early as possible," the CJI, who was indisposed and in quarantine for the last few days, said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the US-based creditor, said it also wanted an early hearing. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/india-beats-the-us-to-emerge-as-the-second-biggest-market-for-5g-smartphones/articleshow/113095322.cms">India beats the US to emerge as the second-biggest market for 5G smartphones</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-16-to-launch-on-september-9-design-specs-and-everything-we-know-so-far/articleshow/113091114.cms">Apple iPhone 16 to launch on September 9 – design, specs and everything we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/webstories/shree-tirupati-balajee-agro-trading-ipo-price-band-to-risk-factors-all-you-need-to-know/slidelist/113082663.cms">Shree Tirupati Balajee Agro Trading IPO – Price band to risk factors, all you need to know</a>

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A Missouri court will hear oral arguments for Biden's SAVE student-loan repayment plan on October 24.</li><li>The SAVE plan has been blocked for months following challenges from GOP state attorneys general.</li></ul>Millions of student-loan borrowers are getting a step closer to a court ruling on cheaper payments and debt relief.Last summer, Biden and his Education Department introduced the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-debt-borrowers-apply-income-driven-repayment-save-plan-2023-7">SAVE income-driven repayment plan</a>, intended to make repayment cheaper for borrowers and bring them a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-get-student-loan-forgiveness-early-income-driven-repayment-2024-1">shorter timeline for student-loan forgiveness</a>.Shortly after the Education Department began implementing key parts of the plan — like loan forgiveness for borrowers who had original balances of $12,000 or less and made as few as 10 years of qualifying payments — it <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-states-lawsuit-block-save-student-loan-income-driven-repayment-2024-4">ran into legal threats</a> from groups of GOP state attorneys general and culminated in two separate lawsuits, one of which blocked any future loan forgiveness through the plan in June.Since then, the plan in its entirety has remained blocked — the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals prohibited the Education Department from implementing any provisions of the SAVE plan until the court issues a final decision on the legality of the plan, leaving <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-millennial-worried-cheaper-student-loan-payments-relief-2024-7">8 million enrolled borrowers in limbo</a>.But some movement could soon be made; on October 24, a Missouri court will hear oral arguments on the SAVE plan, after which the 8th Circuit will issue its final decision. It will consider the key arguments the GOP states have made on why SAVE should be blocked, including the plans' harm to student-loan company Mohela and the states' tax revenues."MOHELA faces the imminent loss of revenue in its role as a servicer of loans owned by the Federal Government," the lawsuit the attorneys general filed said.It's <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-student-loan-forgiveness-struck-down-mohela-biden-debt-relief-2023-6">the same argument</a> GOP attorneys general used to block Biden's first attempt at broad student-loan forgiveness last summer, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck down. They had argued that Mohela, which is an instrumentality of Missouri, would lose revenue on forgiven loans despite the servicer having previously denied involvement in the legal process.David Nahmias, the legal director of the UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice, told Business Insider that given the Supreme Court's prior ruling, the arguments the states are making this time around could prevail with the Missouri judges during oral arguments."An appellate court has to apply the law from the US Supreme Court," Nahmias said. "So I think that this particular argument that Missouri and the states are making, even if I believe that it's not substantial, I think that it might hold some water with this panel."<h2 id="9fcf0e7a-8bee-4936-b656-e6a8b0957a39">Where borrowers stand under the SAVE block</h2>It's not surprising that there's confusion surrounding the SAVE litigation — there have been a number of different court rulings over the past few months that impacted different parts of the SAVE plan. For now, borrowers can focus on the 8th Circuit, which <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-student-loan-borrowers-cheaper-payments-debt-cancellation-2024-7">placed a preliminary injunction on the plan in its entirety</a> and will determine whether the plan will ultimately be implemented or blocked.At the end of August, the Supreme Court <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-pause-save-plan-no-lower-student-loan-payments-2024-7">declined to allow the Education Department to move forward</a> with implementing the SAVE plan while the legal process continued, instead referring the task back to the 8th Circuit. In its one-paragraph ruling, the nation's highest court said that it expects the 8th Circuit "will render its decision with appropriate dispatch," encouraging the court to move quickly with its final decision.It's unclear when exactly a final decision on the SAVE plan will be made, and the 8th Circuit might look at the broader relief the Supreme Court struck down as context to make its decision. However, Nahmias said that the arguments the GOP attorneys general are making — particularly when it comes to Mohela — are highly speculative.For example, Federal Student Aid announced in April that over 1 million student-loan borrowers <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-borrowers-being-transferred-from-mohela-to-new-servicers-2024-4">were being transferred from Mohela</a> to new servicers upon Mohela request to allow borrowers to receive "the best service and support," and Nahmias said there has not been any evidence of financial harm to the servicer despite it managing fewer accounts."Mohela has been offloading borrowers' accounts, there were accounts of folks who were already having their loans being discharged, and there is no sign of any financial harm to Mohela," Nahmias said.Mohela did not immediately respond to a request for comment from BI on the lawsuit.While the SAVE plan has been blocked, the Education Department has kept enrolled borrowers <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-blocked-student-loan-payments-paused-no-debt-cancellation-2024-7">on interest-free forbearance</a> and said it will continue to fight for the plan in court. Even so, Nahmias said the legal whiplash borrowers are experiencing is prompting chaos and confusion."People just can't make any independent decisions about how much they're going to pay every month to their student loans," Nahmias said. "This is something that affects millions of people, and they just can't."

8 million student-loan borrowers who remain blocked from cheaper payments and debt cancellation are getting a step closer to a final decision on Biden's new repayment plan

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday on President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.</li><li>The Biden administration launched the plan last August and was quickly sued over it.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-justices-target-fairness-exeuctive-overreach-2023-2">oral arguments</a> on two challenges to President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan.<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-supreme-court-arguments-debt-relief-2023-2">Biden's plan</a>, which would cancel $20,000 in student debt for Pell Grant recipients earning under $125,000 a year, and up to $10,000 for other federal borrowers, was announced last summer and faced immediate backlash from Republicans and conservatives. Both cases the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday are seeking to permanently block the plan from taking effect.Here's how the legal challenges to Biden's student debt cancellation plan unfolded:<h2>Biden enacted his long-promised student loan forgiveness plan last August</h2>Biden touted the issue of student-loan forgiveness on the 2020 campaign trail and spent much of his first year and a half in office floating various proposals and extending the federal pause on student loan payments that started at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.It wasn't until last August when <a href="https://www.justice.gov/d9/2022-11/2022-08-23-heroes-act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden announced he would use the HEROES Act of 2003</a> to enact his long-promised student loan forgiveness plan. The HEROES Act gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, like COVID-19.Biden's use of the HEROES Act to enact broad student loan forgiveness plan sparked controversy.<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/171-republican-lawmakers-join-effort-stop-student-loan/story?id=96898628" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Challengers to Biden's plan</a> argue that the plan is an example of executive overreach and an abuse of the HEROES Act, insisting such debt relief requires congressional approval. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-bidens-student-loan-debt-relief-legal-economists-experts-2022-11">Biden's supporters disagree</a>, arguing that the HEROES Act justifies the plan and that the financial harms borrowers have suffered amid the COVID-19 pandemic justify student-debt relief.<div type="image" title="Supreme Court" height="3712" width="5568" msid="98317397" hostid="261"></div><h2>Immediately, lawsuits seeking to block Biden's plan began taking shape</h2>Barely a month after Biden announced his student loan forgiveness plan, the lawsuits began.<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-company-mohela-involved-lawsuit-against-biden-debt-cancellation-2022-10">Six GOP-led states</a>, including Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina, jointly sued the Biden administration, alleging the plan would damage their tax revenues, harm student-loan company MOHELA, and exceed Biden's authority as president. The states argue that such a plan cannot be accomplished by executive authority, and must go through Congress.Two student-loan borrowers backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative nonprofit, also <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-lawsuit-student-loan-forgiveness-secret-buy-votes-november-biden-2022-10">sued the Biden administration</a>. The plaintiffs said they were excluded from some of the relief provided in Biden's plan, and alleged that the Biden administration deprived them of their procedural rights by failing to adequately consult the public on the plan before implementing it.<h2>Millions began applying for student-debt relief</h2>Borrowers began <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-borrowers-can-apply-for-debt-cancellation-beta-testing-2022-10">applying for student-debt relief</a> online on October 14. Within just a few weeks, the Biden administration announced that<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/when-will-student-loan-debt-relief-happen-biden-borrowers-approved-2022-11"> more than 26 million borrowers had applied</a> and that the Education Department had approved 16 million of them.<h2>Multiple federal judges blocked Biden's plan from taking effect, and the Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments on the 2 cases</h2>On October 21, a federal appeals court <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-appeals-court-temporarily-blocks-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-2022-10-21/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20Oct%2021%20(Reuters),challenging%20the%20loan%2Dforgiveness%20program." target="_blank" rel="noopener">blocked Biden's program</a>, preventing the Biden administration from implementing any debt relief to applicants. The court permitted borrowers to continue applying for relief.On November 10, a federal judge in Texas <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135940851/student-debt-relief-biden-blocked-texas-district-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blocked Biden's plan from taking effect</a>, preventing the administration from accepting new applications from borrowers.In December, the Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments on both major challengers to Biden's plan: Biden v. Nebraska, and Department of Education v. Brown.<div type="image" title="supreme court student loan relief" height="1333" width="2000" msid="98317399" hostid="261"></div><h2>The Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Biden's plan during oral arguments </h2>The Supreme Court justices <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/will-supreme-court-block-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-major-takeaways-2023-2">heard lengthy oral arguments on Tuesday,</a> with many of the conservative justices questioning whether the student loan forgiveness program was an executive overreach.Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly questioned the program's costs and the role of Congress in making such a decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch also questioned whether Biden's plan was fair to those who have either paid off all their student loans or who never took out student loans to begin with.US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the Biden administration acted within its power when it implemented the student-debt relief plan to assist the millions of Americans financially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.<h2>The Supreme Court will likely issue a ruling on student loan forgiveness by the end of June</h2>Though it's always difficult to predict exactly when the Supreme Court will release a decision, the justices will rule on student loan debt relief at some point <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx#:~:text=Opinions%20are%20typically%20released%20on,have%20been%20heard%20and%20decided." target="_blank" rel="noopener">before the end of the court's session</a>, typically the last week of June.

The Supreme Court heard Biden's loan forgiveness case today. Here's when we expect the court to rule on student loans.

<ul class="summary-list"><li>On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging the authority of federal agencies.</li><li>It's one of three major cases that could upend the way the government works.</li></ul>Three major Supreme Court cases could upend the way the government works — and put Americans' federal benefits and consumer protections at risk.On November 29, the nation's high court is hearing oral arguments in the case <a target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-to-consider-multi-pronged-constitutional-attack-on-sec/">SEC v. Jarkesy</a>, which challenges how federal agencies can regulate the industries they oversee.In this case, administrative law judges at the Securities and Exchange Commission found that two hedge funds managed by conservative commentator George Jarkesy committed securities fraud, barring him from participating in the securities industry.However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-61007-CV0.pdf">reversed</a> the SEC's decision in May 2022, declaring the SEC's administrative law judges unconstitutional and stating that Congress does not have the authority to allow the SEC to adjudicate securities fraud cases and that they instead need to go through traditional courts."Federal courts have dealt with actions under the securities statutes for many decades, and there is no reason to believe that such courts are suddenly incapable of continuing that work just because an agency may now share some of the workload," the 5th Circuit's decision said.The SEC and several other federal agencies have used in-house adjudication systems for years, and Jarkesy's challenge to that process could upend the way Americans and businesses rely on that process to help with any concerns or challenges they might be dealing with.Essentially, getting rid of administrative law judges would make it a lot harder for agencies to actually regulate industries, putting consumer protections at risk.According to a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/sec-v-jarkesy-the-threat-to-congressional-and-agency-authority/">brief</a> from the think tank Center for American Progress, a ruling in favor of Jarkesy would make it harder for Social Security recipients to have their benefits claims adjudicated by the administrative law judges in the Social Security Administration."Such a ruling could result in 80 years of administrative law being overturned by removing ALJs' independent decision-making within their agencies, either eliminating them or creating an appearance of bias in their rulings by putting them under the direction of agency management," the brief said. "In turn, this would flood the federal courts with cases, causing both agencies and the courts to grind to a halt."This isn't the only case that challenges how the government works — and poses major implications to consumers. These are the other big cases to follow on the Supreme Court's docket.<h2>A challenge to how a major consumer watchdog is funded</h2>In October, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-debt-relief-borrowers-cfpb-scotus-2023-9">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd.</a>, which argues the CFPB's independent funding structure is unconstitutional.Since the CFPB's establishment in 2011, it has received funding from the Federal Reserve rather than relying on annual funding approval from Congress. The Fifth Circuit ruled in October, however, that the funding structure is unconstitutional and the consumer protection agency should not be allowed to receive funding without explicit annual congressional approval.As Business Insider previously reported, an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court could put consumers at risk because it would threaten the CFPB's ability to perform its oversight actions. For example, the CFPB has <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-debt-relief-borrowers-cfpb-scotus-2023-9">protected student-loan borrowers</a> and returned money to them after being subjected to predatory lending, and changing the funding structure would limit the agency's ability to continue those actions.A ruling against the CFPB's funding scheme could also threaten other federal programs that aren't subject to the annual Congressional appropriations process.Former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Sheila Bair also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/social-security-medicare-federal-programs-vulnerable-cfpb-supreme-court-fdic-2023-10">said in October</a> "the opinion could lead to a sea change in how essential government agencies function — and to potential chaos every time Congress engages in brinkmanship over funding.""Essential government agencies and programs, including Social Security and Medicare, both of which are administered by independently funded bodies, would see their sources of independent funding vulnerable to challenge," she said.<h2>Changing how the federal government is allowed to make regulations</h2>Another Supreme Court challenge has big implications for the way all federal agencies function. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo</a> challenges how much authority federal agencies really have in establishing rules when Congress does not put forth specific language on the regulations in question.Specifically, the case was brought on by a group of fisheries that are challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's interpretation of a law. The NMFS requires commercial fishing boats to allow federal agents to come on fishing expeditions to collect data, but it also said a statute would require some of the fisheries to pay or subsidize the salary of some of those agents.The fisheries are challenging that idea, arguing against the NMFS' interpretation of that statute. The key issue at play here is the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/03/supreme-court-fishermen-required-to-pay-federal-monitors-should-chevron-be-overruled/">Chevron doctrine</a>, which gives federal agencies the power to interpret a relevant law as long as it doesn't go against Congress's language. That doctrine has allowed federal agencies to make regulations across many different industries, even if the original laws enabling those agencies left some details blank.If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the fisheries, it would mean agencies with expertise on a law would not have the ability to make decisions on it — instead giving that authority to courts without the same knowledge.The Supreme Court will likely issue final decisions on these cases by June.

How 3 big Supreme Court cases could derail the government 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday on Biden's student-loan relief plan.</li><li>Supporters say the relief is lawful, while opponents say Biden's policy is unconstitutional.</li></ul>The showdown over President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness will play out at the Supreme Court on Tuesday in two closely watched cases that could determine whether millions of borrowers will have their debt wiped clean.The court's rulings could either deal a major blow or victory to Biden, whose plan would eliminate up to $20,000 in federal loans for borrowers earning under $125,000 annually.Court observers and advocates on both sides plan to tune into Tuesday's oral arguments, which could signal how the justices are thinking about the cases. Questions on whether the parties were harmed by Biden's debt cancelation, for example, could indicate that the court may decide the dispute on narrow grounds rather than rule on the legality of relief, they told Insider.Supporters say Biden's plan would provide much-needed financial relief to the 43 million Americans who took out loans for their higher education, and particularly help communities that are likely to default on their debt and continue to be disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, namely low-income, Black, Latino and Native American.On the other hand, opponents insist Biden's plan would have massive legal implications for the president's authority and pose economic consequences, pointing to the <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58494" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Congressional Budget Office's </a>estimated $400 billion cost to the federal government over the next 30 years.<h2>The arguments</h2>The challengers – six Republican-led states and two federal borrowers – argue that Biden overstepped his power by enacting sweeping debt cancellation without approval from Congress. If Congress doesn't have a say, that "would be really troubling for our ability to govern ourselves," said Casey Mattox, vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian-leaning advocacy group that filed a court brief backing the challengers."It creates a circumstance going forward where future presidents are going to say, 'Well, what's the thing that I can do to likewise, you know, help me at the ballot box or with a certain constituency or whatever?'" Mattox added.The Biden administration has defended that the plan falls under the president's legal authority, claiming the HEROES Act, a federal law enacted in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, allows the education secretary to waive or modify student-loan balances amid a national emergency. In this case, that's the COVID-19 pandemic."The harms of the COVID-19 pandemic are ongoing," Pilar Whitaker, special economic justice counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, said. "This relief is appropriate and it is tailored to those who most need it."<h2>How the court could approach the cases</h2>The Supreme Court will review two questions: whether the challengers have standing – the power to block Biden's relief by showing they suffer an injury from it – and whether the plan exceeds the administration's power. South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman anticipates that the justices will focus plenty of their questions during oral arguments on standing, which could determine whether the challengers are successful or have their bids tossed out. "What's unique about this policy is you're not hurting people. You're doing the opposite. You're helping them, you're removing their debt," Blackman said. "So the parties have to get creative with standing here, which is really the biggest hurdle."In the first case the justices will hear on Tuesday, the GOP-led states – Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri – argue that Biden's relief would hurt their tax revenues, along with the revenue of Missouri-based student-loan company, MOHELA. The states claim that MOHELA will lose revenue from servicing loans because of Biden's relief. Yet the Biden administration <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-506/251435/20230104222942852_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> the states lack standing because they can only claim "alleged harms" – not concrete – and MOHELA isn't a part of their lawsuit.The Biden administration also argues the two borrowers in a separate challenge lack standing. Alexander Taylor and Myra Brown sued the Biden administration because they weren't eligible for full relief under the plan. Taylor claims he didn't qualify for the total $20,000 in relief since that applies to Pell Grant recipients, and Brown has borrowed commercially held loans, which don't qualify for any relief.The borrowers, backed by a conservative group, argue that Biden's plan violates the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment procedure, a federal statute that requires agencies to justify rulemaking to the public and give them an opportunity to comment."Their argument is simply that they want more relief than what they're getting, but getting rid of the program doesn't solve that problem," said Genevieve Bonadies Torres of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which filed a court brief supporting Biden's plan.If the court ultimately decides that neither of the challengers have standing, the cases would effectively be dismissed, clearing the way for Biden's policy to be implemented, according to legal experts.But the justices could instead base their discussion on Tuesday and the eventual rulings around Biden's authority to enact broad debt cancelation, deciding whether the plan can take effect or not."They're on the Supreme Court. They'll do what they want to do," Jonathan Glater, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who signed on to a court brief that backed the debt relief.Still, he added, with at least an hour devoted to oral arguments in each case, expect time to be spent on both the standing and substance questions.Concerning the constitutionality of Biden's plan, advocates on both sides say they feel confident their respective views will prevail at the Supreme Court."I think they will have standing," Mattox said. "I think that there's very little likelihood that the court reaches the merits of the case and actually says, 'This is within the power of the agency under the HEROES Act.'"However, Torres, of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, that supports Biden's plan, said "the law and the facts are on the side of the debt relief plan, and there should be a favorable ruling to the Biden administration."Millions of borrowers have already applied for the loan forgiveness Biden announced in August, but lower courts have temporarily paused the plan from taking effect. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decisions by June.

How the Supreme Court may approach Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on Biden's student-debt relief in February.</li><li>Still, student-loan forgiveness will stay blocked as the legal battles play out.</li></ul>There's good news and bad news up ahead for student-loan borrowers.The good news is that President Joe Biden's debt relief isn't dead in the water — the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/is-student-loan-forgiveness-still-blocked-supreme-court-wont-revive-2022-11">agreed to hear arguments</a> to the case early next year. In the meantime, payments won't resume on January 1 as previously planned.The bad news is that until then, loan forgiveness will remain blocked.In November, two conservative-backed lawsuits succeeded in halting the implementation of Biden's plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for federal borrowers making under $125,000 a year. On November 14, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-is-blocked-federal-court-republican-lawsuit-biden-2022-10">ruled</a> that the temporary pause it placed on the debt relief would remain in place indefinitely, favoring the six Republican-led states who filed a lawsuit that argued relief would hurt their states' tax revenues.A separate <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-judge-blocks-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-biden-relief-2022-11">decision</a> from a federal court in Texas also blocked Biden's debt relief on November 10, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected the Biden administration's request to pause that ruling and allow the relief to move forward.However, following the 8th Circuit's ruling, Biden's administration took matters to the Supreme Court and asked it to revive student-loan forgiveness as the legal proceedings play out. On Thursday, the nation's highest court <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/is-student-loan-forgiveness-still-blocked-supreme-court-wont-revive-2022-11">responded</a>: It will not allow the relief to progress right now, but it will hear oral arguments to the case in February."We welcome the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case on our student debt relief plan for middle and working class borrowers this February," White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a Thursday <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/12/01/statement-from-white-house-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-on-the-supreme-court-taking-up-student-debt-relief-case/">statement</a>."This program is necessary to help over 40 million eligible Americans struggling under the burden of student loan debt recover from the pandemic and move forward with their lives," she continued. "The program is also legal, supported by careful analysis from administration lawyers. President Biden will keep fighting against efforts to rob middle class families of the relief they need and deserve."<h2>What comes next for student-loan borrowers</h2>Since October, student-loan forgiveness has been on pause. While the Education Department has recently <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-administration-notifies-approved-student-loan-relief-applicants-2022-11">started notifying</a> some of the 26 million borrowers who already applied for relief that they had been approved, student-loan servicers have been blocked from actually discharging any student loans. Borrowers who have not yet submitted applications currently do not have the option to apply.In response to the legal challenges, Biden <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-payment-pause-extended-6-months-supreme-court-2022-11">extended</a> the pause on student-loan payments until June 30, 2023, or until the lawsuits are resolved, whichever comes first. This means federal borrowers do not have to worry about restarting payments after December 31, when they were previously scheduled to resume.In the meantime, all eyes are on the Supreme Court. According to its decision, it will hear oral arguments in February and will address <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/22-00506qp.pdf">two questions</a> to the case: Whether the Republican-led states that filed the lawsuit have standing, and whether Biden's plan to cancel student debt exceeds the Education Secretary's authority or is "arbitrary and capricious."While the Supreme Court has just responded to the 8th Circuit decision, Biden's administration also asked the Court to intervene in the 5th Circuit decision that blocked the relief on Friday evening, so it's possible both cases will be combined.The issue of standing has long been the focus of not only this specific lawsuit, but the other conservative lawsuits that have sought to block debt relief. But as Politico <a href="https://twitter.com/mstratford/status/1598448550547017731">noted</a>, this would be the first time a court is examining whether Biden's debt relief is arbitrary, in which the loan forgiveness would be found to not be in accordance with the law and demonstrates an "abuse of discretion," per the Administrative Procedures Act.Republican lawmakers have continued to argue that Biden is overstepping authority granted under the HEROES Act of 2003, which is the law the Education Secretary is using to cancel student debt. But some advocates and experts have recently <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-bidens-student-loan-debt-relief-legal-economists-experts-2022-11">expressed support</a> of that authority through a series of amicus curiae briefs, and the administration has not publicly suggested concerns with the legal route it chose to take."Our student debt relief program is necessary to help 40M eligible Americans struggling under the burden of student loan debt recover from the pandemic," Education Secretary Miguel Cardona <a href="https://twitter.com/SecCardona/status/1598487429761179648">wrote</a> on Twitter. "That's 40M borrowers who chased the American dream through higher education. I look forward to SCOTUS hearing our case."

The Supreme Court will hear Biden's student-loan forgiveness case in February. Here's what that means for millions of borrowers waiting for relief.

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Biden's student-loan forgiveness on February 28.</li><li>It will take on the two lawsuits that have paused the debt relief so far.</li></ul>President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness is officially in the Supreme Court's book.On Monday, the nation's highest court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalFebruary2023.html">announced</a> it will be taking on both lawsuits that challenged Biden's debt relief on February 28. After Biden announced up to $20,000 in debt cancellation for borrowers making under $125,000 a year at the end of August, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lawsuits-delay-biden-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-where-they-stand-2022-10">a number of conservative-backed lawsuits</a> arose seeking to block the relief, and two of them have temporarily succeeded so far. One lawsuit, filed by six Republican-led states, argued the debt relief would hurt their states' tax revenues and that of Missouri-based <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-company-mohela-involved-lawsuit-against-biden-debt-cancellation-2022-10">student-loan company MOHELA</a>. The other lawsuit was filed by two student-loan borrowers who sued because they did not qualify for the full $20,000 of relief.Two lower courts that received each of those cases ruled that Biden's loan forgiveness plan should remain on pause until the Supreme Court makes a final decision on the legality of the relief.With regards to the lawsuit filed by the GOP-led states, the Supreme Court will consider <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-2022-12">these two questions</a>: Whether the Republican-led states that filed the lawsuit have standing, and whether Biden's plan to cancel student debt exceeds the Education Secretary's authority or is "arbitrary and capricious."For the lawsuit filed by the two student-loan borrowers, the Supreme Court will <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/is-the-supreme-court-hearing-second-student-debt-relief-case-2022-12">address</a> whether the plaintiffs in the case have standing, and whether Biden's debt relief was implemented in a "procedurally proper manner."The question of authority has loomed over Biden's debt relief plan even before he officially announced it. Biden used the HEROES Act of 2003 to cancel student debt, which gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, like COVID-19. But the lawsuits, along with some Republican lawmakers, have argued that Biden overstepped the authority granted under the HEROES Act, and enacting broad debt relief should require Congressional approval. While Biden's administration has maintained confidence it will prevail in court, some advocates and Democratic lawmakers have argued he could use the Higher Education Act of 1965 instead to forgive student loans, which would not require the existence of a national emergency.For now, millions of borrowers remain in limbo as they wait for a Supreme Court ruling. Biden recently announced an <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-payment-pause-extended-6-months-supreme-court-2022-11">extension</a> of the student-loan payment pause as a result of the lawsuits through June 30 or whenever the lawsuits are resolved — whichever comes first. But should Biden's broad debt relief plan ultimately get struck down, it's unclear at this point what would come next for borrowers.

The Supreme Court just set a date to hear Biden's student-loan forgiveness case, which will decide the fate of millions of borrowers

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court agreed to hear a second challenge to President Joe Biden's student-debt relief.</li><li>The challenge was brought by two student-loan borrowers who didn't qualify for the full amount of relief.</li></ul>The Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan — and that of millions of federal borrowers.On Monday, the nation's highest court agreed to hear a second <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-judge-blocks-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-biden-relief-2022-11">challenge</a> early next year to Biden's program, which is currently on hold. The case was brought by two student student-loan borrowers — Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor — who sued the Biden administration because they did not qualify for the full $20,000 in relief that the president announced at the end of August.A federal judge in Texas, appointed by former President Donald Trump, granted the borrowers' request and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-judge-blocks-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-biden-relief-2022-11">blocked</a> the implementation of the debt relief in November. While Biden's Justice Department appealed the decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/is-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-still-blocked-fifth-circuit-decision-2022-12">declined</a> to reinstate the plan. The department took matters to the Supreme Court, asking it to make the final ruling on the legality of the debt relief.According to the Supreme Court filing, it is asking for both parties to address these two questions: whether the plaintiffs in the case have standing, and whether Biden's debt relief was implemented in a "procedurally proper manner."In the meantime, the justices refused to lift the hold on the relief, as US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had requested. The Education Department is not currently able to accepting applications for the plan that would cancel $10,000 for federal borrowers earning less than $125,000 and $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients earning less than $125,000.Oral arguments on the dispute will take place in February, joining another case concerning Biden's program. The Supreme Court earlier this month <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/is-student-loan-forgiveness-still-blocked-supreme-court-wont-revive-2022-11">already agreed</a> to take up a separate challenge brought by six Republican-led states that argued the loan forgiveness would hurt their states' tax revenues. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which temporarily halted the relief in October, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-is-blocked-federal-court-republican-lawsuit-biden-2022-10">ruled</a> in November that the pause will remain in place, prompting the Biden administration to ask the highest court to make the final ruling.The questions the Supreme Court will review in that case are whether the GOP-led states have standing, and whether the debt relief exceeds the Education Secretary's authority or is "arbitrary and capricious."The Biden administration has consistently maintained that it has the authority to enact its one-time student-loan forgiveness using the HEROES Act of 2003, which gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, such as COVID-19. But in light of the lawsuits, Biden <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-payment-pause-extended-6-months-supreme-court-2022-11">announced</a> an extension of the student-loan payment pause through June 30 at the latest, or until the lawsuits are resolved — whichever comes first. Payments were previously scheduled to resume after December 31, but Biden said that it "isn't fair that tens of millions of borrowers that are eligible for relief to resume their student debt payments while the courts consider the lawsuit."The Supreme Court is expected hand down decisions in both cases by next June.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear a 2nd student-loan forgiveness case next year to decide millions of borrowers' fates

It's an incredible feeling to finally become free of student debt, to feel the financial weight lifted off your shoulders after years of worrying about making payments.I've gotten to see this joy over the past year by helping people apply for debt cancellation through the government's Public Service Loan Forgiveness temporary waiver. The PSLF program cancels federal student loans for people who work in public-service jobs for 10 years, and the impact of relief is profound. I've seen school principals <a href="https://twitter.com/SecCardona/status/1616147253248270338" target="_blank" rel="noopener">finally be able to afford groceries</a> and teachers <a href="https://twitter.com/ontheBalledu/status/1480996772373843969?s=20&amp;t=jLbyADZQUB3nwd7-sG8Pcg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">weep in disbelief</a>. Some, like my sister who is a social worker for the Department of Veterans Affairs, even get a refund check for overpayments in addition to full cancellation.For the most part, my work has helped trigger <a href="https://twitter.com/bethbourdon/status/1493675662854561799" target="_blank" rel="noopener">celebrations</a>, but not always. After several of her coworkers were already on track to get their loans canceled, Rosey Olivero wrote to me with troubling news. She got a letter from her loan servicer saying she didn't qualify for cancellation. Rosey is a pediatric infectious-disease specialist who specializes in treating children with HIV. She's exactly the kind of public servant that PSLF was intended for. After investigating, we discovered the problem: She had refinanced her federal student loans in 2017 with a private lender.The vast majority of student loans, <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2022Q4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">about $1.6 trillion</a> worth, is owed directly to the federal government. But there are many private lenders that try to persuade borrowers to refinance with them. According to <a href="https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_education-loan-ombudsman_report_2022-10.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a>, private lenders hold $128 billion in student-loan debt. These lenders lure people in with a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-stripped-away-refinance-private-loan-debt-2022-8">barrage of marketing</a> that promises thousands of dollars of savings through lower interest rates. Once someone agrees to refinance, the companies pay off their federal student loans in full and issue a brand-new private loan in the same amount but with different terms. In the process, borrowers forfeit many protections that come with federal student loans, including the chance to get their loans canceled.According to the lender's sales pitch, Rosey would save more than $100,000 over the long run by refinancing. At the time, that seemed like a good deal. But if she hadn't refinanced, she would have gotten the entire loan canceled. Today, she still has $90,000 to pay off. The devastating news was a gut punch.Most federal student-loan payments are still paused until <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-supreme-court-strikes-down-debt-cancellation-2023-5">later this summer</a>. But once payments resume, millions of people will be bombarded with letters, emails, and phone calls from private companies trying to persuade them to refinance their student loans. One private lender is even <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/end-student-loan-payment-pause-sofi-files-lawsuit-block-relief-2023-3" rel="nofollow sponsored">suing the Department of Education</a> to resume payments sooner since they can't compete with a moratorium on student-loan payments. But reader, be forewarned: There are many reasons to avoid falling for their ploy.<h2>Rise of refinancers</h2>The student-loan-refinancing industry exploded in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09fob-wwln-t.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Many suddenly unemployed workers went back to school</a> in hopes that more education would make them more competitive in a recession. At the same time, <a href="https://www.demos.org/research/great-cost-shift-continues" target="_blank" rel="noopener">states were drastically cutting funding for universities</a> in an attempt to deal with their own fiscal problems, and universities <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-higher-education-funding-cuts-have-pushed-costs-to-students" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raised tuition</a> to make up for the shortfall. Total student debt <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/25/1_t_day_as_us_student" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surpassed $1 trillion for the first time in 2012</a>. Sensing an untapped opportunity, a flurry of fintech startups cashed in with "innovations" that were little more than traditional predatory practices dressed up with new, internet-driven packaging.Before 2010, federal student loans were created by private institutions like Sallie Mae but guaranteed by the federal government — so if a borrower couldn't end up paying, the government would step in. Student debt was a moneymaking machine: Lenders would even package these guaranteed loans and sell them to investors. But it was a raw deal for the government, and in 2010, President Barack Obama <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/us/politics/31obama.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cut out the intermediaries</a> and had the government start issuing federal student loans directly. Private lenders refused to stand by and let their cash cow dry up, so they pivoted to refinancing student loans. Startups like SoFi, LendKey, and CommonBond were soon joined by more-traditional lenders like Discover. And Navient, which spun off from Sallie Mae, quickly became a major refinancer.These private lenders have spent millions of dollars chasing down customers and lobbying against loan-assistance programs. In the first 1 ½ years of the pandemic, they collectively spent <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/08/student-loan-companies-spend-millions-lobbying-amid-extended-moratorium/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$6 million</a> lobbying lawmakers to resume student-loan payments. And now, SoFi is <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/end-student-loan-payment-pause-sofi-files-lawsuit-block-relief-2023-3" rel="nofollow sponsored">suing the Department of Education</a> to end the COVID payment pause. While data is sparse, SoFi spent $170 million in marketing in 2017, according to <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/40539348/sofi-pays-premium-prices-to-acquire-its-prime-customers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fast Company</a>, and planned to spend $200 million in 2018.<div type="image" title="Supreme Court" height="2784" width="5568" msid="98306190" hostid="261"></div>Refinancing companies are able to grab customers for one reason: interest rates. The <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-student-loans_n_3240407" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high interest rates Congress</a> has set on federal student loans have allowed refinancing companies to turn a quick profit by offering some borrowers much-lower interest rates and promising smaller monthly payments. While this offer may seem like a godsend for cash-strapped graduates, it comes with a slew of downsides.<h2>If you refinance your student loans, you could pay more</h2>Many people who refinance actually end up paying <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/162_3197_sofi_draft_admin_compl_10-26-18_rc_not_rec.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">thousands of dollars more in interest</a> over the long run. For example, someone with $100,000 in federal graduate student loans at the current 6.54% interest rate would make monthly payments of $1,138 on the standard 10-year plan and end up paying $36,502 in interest over the lifetime of the loan. But if they refinanced for a lower monthly payment of $660 at a lower interest rate of 5% over a 20-year repayment plan, it would cost them $58,390 in interest over the long term. People can also get enticed into a variable interest rate: Unlike federal loans, which have a locked-in interest rate from start to finish, privately refinanced loans might start out with a low rate, only to skyrocket years down the line because of changing market rates. In 2018, the Federal Trade Commission sued SoFi, alleging its marketing misled people about how much <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/a-popular-student-debt-lender-is-accused-of-misleading-borrowers.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">money they would save if they refinanced</a>. In a comment given to CNBC at the time, a spokesperson for SoFi disputed the FTC's characterization: "We have always been committed to giving our current and prospective members clear and complete information with which to make smart financial choices, and are pleased to have this matter resolved."But for many borrowers, the complicated and confusing terms of refinancing offers turn into a boondoggle. Nikki Giraffo is a teacher who felt like she was entering a hall of mirrors anytime she tried to explore her options. Every time she called Navient, her federal-loan servicer, she seemed to get a different answer. On one of those calls to Navient, the representative suggested refinancing her loans privately. Nikki ended up refinancing twice, first with Citizens Bank and then with NaviRefi, but did not end up saving any money. Nikki told me that she felt "lied to and pushed around" by the various loan companies. When I asked her whether she regretted refinancing, she told me "1,000%." Nikki is not alone. In one survey, more than one-third of respondents who refinanced their federal student loans said they <a href="https://money.usnews.com/loans/student-loans/articles/student-loan-refinancing-survey" target="_blank" rel="noopener">eventually came to regret it</a>.<h2>If you refinance your student loans, you risk losing out on government assistance</h2>The Education Department offers various payment plans to ease the debt burden for borrowers. Income-driven plans allow borrowers to pay a percentage of their income toward the loans with no penalty — giving people the ability to pay little or nothing on their student loans when they can't afford to. And the Biden administration has <a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-proposed-regulations-would-transform-income-driven-repayment-cutting-undergraduate-loan-payments-half-and-preventing-unpaid-interest-accumulation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposed changes</a> that will allow millions more people to make $0 monthly payments while not accruing interest. This summer, the Education Department will also conduct a massive <a href="https://studentaid.gov/announcements-events/idr-account-adjustment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">account adjustment</a> that will cancel debt for millions of people and put millions more much closer to cancellation.<div type="image" title="George Washington University student Kai Nilsen and other student loan debt activists rally outside the White House a day after President Biden announced a plan that would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 a year in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2022." height="1992" width="2657" msid="98306192" hostid="261"></div>The most headline-grabbing piece of student-debt news over the past few years was Biden's <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-one-time-no-more-broad-relief-2022-8">plan to cancel up to $10,000 in federal student loans</a> ($20,000 for those with Pell Grants) for anyone making less than $125,000 a year. While the plan was struck down by the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-supreme-court-strikes-down-debt-cancellation-2023-5">Supreme Court</a>, it would have only helped those who had not previously refinanced their loans with a private company.Refinancing companies had told people to leave $10,000 or $20,000 of federal student loans un-refinanced to stay eligible for Biden's cancellation plan. But even if you did that, you are still locking yourself into a long-term private loan that will prevent you from being eligible for any future cancellation. <h2>If you refinance your student loans, you can put your family at risk</h2>To get approved and the lowest rates, most people who refinance their student loans are required to have a cosigner — someone who agrees to pay if you can't. This is most often a spouse, parents, or children. If a borrower loses their job or isn't able to work, the cosigner is still on the hook for the debt. If the cosigner can't make the payments, either, it can destroy their credit and the lender can sue to garnish their wages. It's also not uncommon for the terms of the loan <a href="https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201404_cfpb_midyear-report_private-student-loans-2014.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to require a lump-sum payment</a> if the cosigner dies or files for bankruptcy. Imagine being forced to come up with $400,000 with 30 days' notice after the death of a close family member — when things go bad, they go very bad.Federal student loans, by contrast, do not require a cosigner. If you get laid off or fall on hard times and can't make a payment, none of your loved ones will be saddled with this debt. You can file paperwork that will lower or eliminate your payments. People undergoing <a href="https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/CancerTreatmentDeferment.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cancer treatment</a>, for example, can get their federal loans deferred. And if you die, your loans get discharged.<div type="image" title="Doctor Ali Jamehdor, Chief Director of the Emergency Room of the Dignity Health - St. Mary Medical Center, stands in front of a Covid-19 triage tent for patients with symptoms in Long Beach, California, on December 17, 2020. - Over the last two weeks, the number of new Covid-19 cases in 24 hours has climbed above 200,000 for 11 out of 14 days. Experts now fear the situation will become even more dire following end of year celebrations, including the Christmas holiday. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images)" height="4320" width="5760" msid="98306194" hostid="261"></div>In my years of helping people buried in debt, the most painful conversations have surrounded cosigners. It's bad enough to find your own life in financial ruin, but to be the cause of financial stress to those you love the most is heart-wrenching. Recent changes to the law require <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2155" target="_blank" rel="noopener">private student loans to be discharged if you die</a>, but that isn't the case with older loans. Since refinancing companies love to target doctors loaded up with medical-school debt, this became an additional source of stress during the worst of the COVID-19 crisis. As Andrew Tisser, an emergency-room doctor who refinanced with a private company, <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/medical-workers-tackling-coronavirus-theyre-185600436.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">put it</a>, "If I were to die from COVID right now, my family would be stuck with $433,000." Most private student loans allow for some kind of "cosigner release" so no one else is on the hook for your loans. But in my experience, it's <a href="https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201404_cfpb_midyear-report_private-student-loans-2014.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hard to get these private lenders to honor their own policies</a>.<h2>Refinancing companies make the system worse for everyone</h2>Private refinancing companies don't just hand out their loans to anyone. The ideal targets for these companies are people who have a solid credit score, high income, and a large student-loan balance — in the hundreds of thousands. They typically target doctors, lawyers, and people with graduate degrees in STEM fields since they represent the lowest risk. While refinancing companies use "colorblind" metrics like income, the school you graduated from, and your major, it just so happens that the kind of people whom refinance companies approve turn out to be mostly well-off <a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/news/upstart-says-its-improving-ai-models-after-report-finds-race-approval-disparities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">white men</a>. A 2020 study by the Student Borrower Protection Center found students who attended historically Black colleges and universities <a href="https://protectborrowers.org/new-report-finds-educational-redlining-penalizes-borrowers-who-attended-community-colleges-and-minority-serving-institutions-perpetuates-systemic-disparities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">got rejected more often and had higher rates when approved</a>.And by siphoning off the people most likely to pay off their whole loan balance, refinancing companies leave the government with the borrowers who are most likely to end up not being able to pay, which drives up the cost of higher education for everyone.<h2>So who should consider refinancing their student loans?</h2>There is one situation where it might make sense to refinance: if your student loans are already private. This is especially true for people with private loans from before <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2155" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal protections were added in 2018</a>. If refinancing a loan that is already private can get you a lower interest rate or release your cosigner, then it's absolutely in your best interest to refinance. But since interest rates are rising, you're unlikely to find a better deal anytime soon.For everyone else, the risks of refinancing are almost always too high. Many of the well-paid student debtors targeted by refinancing companies might think that they have more financial security and can afford to take that risk. But as the recent wave of mass layoffs at Silicon Valley giants like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook show, a sudden job loss can happen to anyone. Most Americans are <a href="https://khn.org/news/article/diagnosis-debt-investigation-faces-of-medical-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one slip on a banana peel</a> away from <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bankruptcy</a>. Millions of people are <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-data-shows-long-covid-is-keeping-as-many-as-4-million-people-out-of-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unable to work because of long COVID</a>. You are much better off having the protections that come with federal student loans if you get laid off or have a sudden medical emergency. Private lenders are quick to swarm borrowers with tantalizing offers of large savings and may seem like a godsend for hardworking people living with the constant pressure of student loans. But if you fall for the pitch, you risk losing out on a whole lot of protections.When I asked Nikki what advice she would give, she told me, "Trust no one. Hang up the phone. They are preying on literal desperation."<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/thomas-gokey">Thomas Gokey</a> is a co-founder of the Debt Collective, a union for debtors where he currently serves as a case worker and policy director.

The Supreme Court shut down Biden's student loan forgiveness &mdash; and refinancing startups are waiting to pounce

<ul class="summary-list"><li>In three years of litigation, Donald Trump has never opposed NY's civil fraud case on constitutional grounds.</li><li>But in spirited closing arguments Thursday, Trump's lawyer raised multiple constitutional issues.</li></ul>In spirited closing arguments Thursday, a defense lawyer told a Manhattan judge that the extraordinary penalties New York seeks in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-now-wants-trump-to-pay-back-370m-2024-1">the state's $370 million fraud lawsuit</a> against former President Donald Trump and his real-estate empire violate the US Constitution.That word — Constitution — hasn't cropped up often, if at all, in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/letitia-james-vs-donald-trump-questions-answered-2022-8">the long history of New York Attorney General Letitia James's pursuit of Trump.</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gets-to-speak-in-ny-fraud-closings-calling-himself-a-victim-2024-1#:~:text=Trump%20was%20allowed%20to%20make,greatest%20assets%20in%20the%20world.%22">Thursday's closings</a> were, in fact, the first time in three years of litigation that Trump has opposed the attorney general on constitutional grounds, one trial insider noted, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were unauthorized to comment on the case.But the newly-debuted constitutional focus now suggests that when a verdict comes down in the next two weeks, Trump wants to be ready to fight it all the way to the US Supreme Court, the insider and other experts who've monitored the case said Friday.<div type="image" title="Donald Trump addresses reporters after closing arguments in his civil fraud trial in New York." height="1761" width="2500" msid="106816219" hostid="261" sizebytes="91576"></div>Laying the groundwork for a SCOTUS challenge is a smart move, according to attorney Marc Frazier Scholl.After <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-trump-sons-lawyers-10k-each-for-repeating-losing-arguments-2023-9">a three-year history of futile defenses</a> — including Trump's repeatedly rejected claim that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gets-to-speak-in-ny-fraud-closings-calling-himself-a-victim-2024-1">he's the victim of a political attack </a>— a constitutional challenge is one of the most reasonable and promising legal moves Trump has tried, Scholl said."This type of claim is the way the case should have been defended all along," said Scholl, a former financial crimes prosecutor for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office who also worked as a public corruption investigator for the New York Inspector General. "They should have focused all along on actual arguments, as opposed to what Trump wanted them to say about unfairness and witch hunts," said Scholl, who is now <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lbkmlaw.com/attorneys-Marc-Frazier-Scholl.html">of counsel at Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss.</a><div type="image" title="An artist's sketch of Donald Trump listening to closing arguments in his civil fraud trial in New York." height="1875" width="2500" msid="106816220" hostid="261" sizebytes="386350"></div><h2>The path to SCOTUS</h2>An appeal of the judge's final setting of penalties — complaining it's too high or that the judge made mistakes in presiding over the investigation and trial — is all well and proper on the state level but would never reach the US Supreme Court.Instead, his lawyers must challenge the constitutionality of <a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EXC/63">Executive Law 63(12)</a>, the two-paragraph New York statute that has empowered James over the course of six years to develop her fraud case against Trump and bring it to trial.This law lets a judge shut down a business and banish its executives from the state if an attorney general proves persistent fraud and criminality, as<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-we-all-forget-about-the-upcoming-trump-fraud-verdict-2023-12"> James has alleged of Trump.</a>On their way to the US Supreme Court, Trump's lawyers would first need to exhaust their New York state appellate options.If the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ultimately upholds Executive Law 63(12) as constitutional, at least as it applies to Trump, the defense can ask the US Supreme Court to hear the case next.<div type="image" title="New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron presided over closing arguments in the Trump civil fraud trial." height="1667" width="2500" msid="106816223" hostid="261" sizebytes="108510"></div>Throwing the case to the US Supreme Court could, at the least, delay the imposition of penalties, Scholl said.It would transfer the case into what Trump sees as friendlier hands, given the high court's six-three conservative supermajority, including three justices he nominated himself.A constitutional challenge could also have a fighting chance, Scholl said.It's unlikely the US Supreme Court would throw out New York's executive law in its entirety, he predicted. But the court could quite possibly pare back, at least in Trump's case, its most severe penalties.<div type="image" title="New York Attorney General Letitia James attended closing arguments in the Trump civil fraud trial." height="1667" width="2500" msid="106816224" hostid="261" sizebytes="165322"></div><h2>And those severe penalties are?</h2><a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24254337-nyag-v-trump-ag-closing-briefs-20240105">James has demanded</a> that Trump, his business, his two eldest sons, and two other long-standing Trump Organization executives give back $370 million — plus interest — that she says they pocketed through fraud.The AG additionally wants to permanently ban Trump from running a New York business and to ban him for five years from selling or buying commercial property in New York or borrowing from a New York-registered bank.And in a bombshell pre-trial fraud ruling from September, the judge presiding over the non-jury case, state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, has already set the most damaging penalty allowed under 63(12), ordering<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-ny-fraud-verdict-could-kill-the-trump-organization-2023-12"> the "dissolution" of all Trump properties licensed to do business in New York.</a>The properties are to be be placed in receivership and sold, with Trump keeping the cash proceeds. These looming dissolutions remain on hold pending appeal. It remains to be seen if Engoron will preserve that draconian penalty in his final verdict, expected by the end of January."My guess would be that they would say that a penalty that amounts to a financial death sentence, or <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-ruling-corporate-death-penalty-for-his-empire-experts-2023-9">a corporate death sentence,</a> is unconstitutional," Scholl said of the US Supreme Court."It's a massive thing to lock him and his company out of the state, basically, and say you are no longer allowed to do business here."<div type="image" title="A court sketch artist's depiction of defense lawyer Christopher Kise speaking on Donald Trump's behalf at the New York civil fraud trial in Manhattan." height="1875" width="2500" msid="106816226" hostid="261" sizebytes="722498"></div><h2>Trump's lawyer debuts a constitutional strategy</h2>"What they're asking you to do implicates the Constitution," Trump's lead lawyer, Christopher Kise, told the judge in Thursday's closing arguments, broaching the topic as Trump watched from the defense table.Kise devoted a page of his summation slide show to the sections of the Constitution that he believes the attorney general wants the judge to violate.One was the Fifth Amendment, which, in addition to offering protection against self-incrimination, also protects against excessive punishments, including high fines."A number in the sky" and "absurdly disproportionate," Kise called the AG's $370 million demand.This may not be Trump's strongest Constitutional argument, experts said, given that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-now-wants-trump-to-pay-back-370m-2024-1">James has painstakingly justified that number.</a>The bulk of the proposed penalty is $169 million in loan-interest savings that James says Trump enjoyed over the course of a decade through fraudulently exaggerating his wealth in annual net-worth statements sent to banks.<div type="image" title="Donald Trump sitting in a courtroom with his lawyers." height="1668" width="2500" msid="106816227" hostid="261" sizebytes="286672"></div><h2>The 'Takings Clause'</h2>Kise also cited the Fifth Amendment's protection against the seizure of property without due process, known as the "Takings Clause.""A prohibition on President Trump engaging in any commercial real-estate transactions!" Kise argued, outrage rising in his voice."I mean, that interferes with his power over the disposition of his own property," he argued."It impacts hundreds of nondefendant companies, employees, properties. This is a taking. It's a confiscatory taking without compensation."The Takings Clause is Trump's strongest constitutional argument, Scholl said, calling it "the argument with the best chance."<h2>Due process</h2>Kise made the very briefest of mention on Thursday of Trump being denied "due process.""The court has to consider the harm or potential harm actually suffered" by Trump's alleged misdeeds, and then weigh whether that would be "an excessive punitive award," Kise said vaguely before moving on to another topic.Due process is something that shows up in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It protects against a state enforcing a judgment against someone without giving them an opportunity to be heard.Trump arguing that his due-process rights were violated would seem a stretch, experts said."States have the power to take away licenses and the ability to do business in cases of fraud and deception," noted Adam S. Kaufmann, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lbkmlaw.com/attorneys-Adam-Kaufmann.html">also of Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss,</a> where he is an executive partner.And Trump has had three years of litigation in which to be heard, culminating Thursday, when <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gets-to-speak-in-ny-fraud-closings-calling-himself-a-victim-2024-1#:~:text=Trump%20gets%20his%20way%20in,a%20'victim'%20in%20surprise%20remarks&amp;text=Trump%20was%20allowed%20to%20make,'they%20should%20pay%20me.%22">the judge let him make a five-minute statement on his own behalf.</a>But there are two kinds of due process, Scholl explained."It can be argued that he had plenty of opportunity to be heard in the case, but that's only what's called "procedural due process," Scholl said of Trump.There's also what's called "substantive due process."A substantive due process challenge would go beyond questioning whether Trump had an opportunity to be heard. It would question the process itself.Is it due process for New York state to have the power to take someone's property in this circumstance, in a case where no bank or individual has complained they were defrauded?"For somebody who just lied about how much they're worth, can you really take all their property away?" Scholl asked, describing what a substantive due process challenge would question.<h2>The Commerce Clause</h2>In his closings Thursday, Kise also mentioned the Commerce Clause from Article I of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce among the states."The AG wants you to rule that a Florida resident, President Trump, cannot transact any lawful business with any New York financial institution," he told the judge.James wants to deny "New York financial institutions the right to transact commerce with him," Kise said. "This is an exceptional unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce."Invoking this Article would be a stretch, Scholl noted, calling it Trump's weakest constitutional argument."I think that his argument that he is a Florida resident is a waste of time," he said. "That's just part of a shotgun approach."Kise did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

You Searched For "supreme court hearing on loan moratorium" and got 11 results

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

PTI

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

PTI

8 million student-loan borrowers who remain blocked from cheaper payments and debt cancellation are getting a step closer to a final decision on Biden's new repayment plan

Ayelet Sheffey

The Supreme Court heard Biden's loan forgiveness case today. Here's when we expect the court to rule on student loans.

Michelle Mark

How 3 big Supreme Court cases could derail the government

Ayelet Sheffey

How the Supreme Court may approach Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan

Oma Seddiq

The Supreme Court will hear Biden's student-loan forgiveness case in February. Here's what that means for millions of borrowers waiting for relief.

Ayelet Sheffey

The Supreme Court just set a date to hear Biden's student-loan forgiveness case, which will decide the fate of millions of borrowers

Ayelet Sheffey

The Supreme Court agrees to hear a 2nd student-loan forgiveness case next year to decide millions of borrowers' fates

Ayelet Sheffey

The Supreme Court shut down Biden's student loan forgiveness and refinancing startups are waiting to pounce

Thomas Gokey

Trump has laid the groundwork for a US Supreme Court challenge in his NY civil fraud case: experts

Laura Italiano

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides