Geoff: Welcome to the newshour.
The fate of some 40 million
Americans promised student debt
relief is in the hands of the
supreme court.
Amna: The justices heard
arguments today in high stakes
cases over the legality of
president Biden's student loan
forgiveness plan.
Students, teachers, and
activists gathered outside the
court highlighting their
struggles and demanding debt
relief.
>> In order to become those, the
next generation of healthcare
workers, the next generation of
working in corporate America,
basically being in your law
enforcement.
In order to do that, we must go
to school. So how can we give
back to her community if we
don't have the resources?
>> I have upwards of $80,000 of
student debt.
Some of that is public.
Some of that is private.
And I think that student debt
cancellation would be a benefit
for many, many people.
Millions.
Amna: The issue has been
embroiled in the courts since
the president announced his debt
relief plan in August of last
year.
Geoff: John yang has more on the
day's argument.
-- Arguments.
John: The court heard two
challenges to the president's
plan.
One from six republican-led
states and another from two
student loan borrowers.
One who doesn't qualify for the
relief because her loans are
held by private lenders, and one
who doesn't qualify for the
program's maximum benefit.
To discuss the arguments,
newshour supreme court analyst
Marcia Coyle, and to talk about
what's at stake, Danielle
douglas-gabriel a Washington
post national education
reporter.
There seems to be a lot of
skepticism today about this
Biden plan.
Marcia: The skepticism seems to
be among primarily the courts
conservative wing.
It is always hard to predict,
but my sense after the
questioning was there may be
five conservative justices who,
looking at the merits of the
case, would not uphold the
student loan forgiveness
program.
But standing in their way of
getting to the merits in the
program is a big hurdle.
And that is called standing.
Justice Barrett, along with the
court's liberal wing, was very
focused on standing, which we
have talked about before.
It is the legal right to
actually sue and hear the
challengers have to show that
they have a specialized injury,
a concrete injury that is
traceable to the conduct of the
education department policy.
And that the court can remedy
it.
It is a huge hurdle, and my
sense after the arguments was
also that the lawyers for the
challengers were not making as
strong an argument as the
government made to oppose
standing.
If the court does not find
standing, the case goes away,
and the program stands.
But if they do, they can go on
to the merits.
I also know that if you have
five justices who really want to
get to the merits, they may
likely find standing some way.
John: One reason the
conservative justices were so
skeptical about the
constitutionality of the Biden
plan is that they say there is
no specific legislation
authorizing it.
Here is chief justice John
Roberts questioning the Biden
administration.
>> The case reminds me of the
one we had a few years ago under
a different administration where
the administration tried acting
on its own to cancel the
dreamers program, and we blocked
that effort.
And I just wondered, given the
posture of the case and given
our historic concern about the
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.
John: This idea that congress
should be the one to decide big
issues, that is a theme for this
conservative majority.
Marcia: And a recent one.
It has to do with the major
questions doctrine.
The court said in June in ace --
in a case involving a clear act,
that if an agency issues a
policy that has serious, major
political and economic
consequences, then the express
authorization of congress is
required.
That is the primary argument of
the challengers in this case.
That this is a major questions
doctrine case, and the court
should apply that to require
congress to expressly authorize
what the department of education
did hear.
John: The liberal justices take
a different view of this
question of who should decide.
This is just a Sonia Sotomayor
questioning the Nebraska
solicitor general.
>> There are 50 million students
who will benefit from this who
today will struggle.
Many of them don't have assets
sufficient to bail them out
after the pandemic.
And what you're saying is now
we're going to give judges the
right to decide how much aid to
give them.
Instead of the person with the
expertise and the experience,
the secretary of education,
who's been dealing with
educational issues and the
problems surrounding student
loans.
John: The three liberal
justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and
Jackson, seems empathetic --
seem sympathetic but this was
authorized by congress.
Marcia: Justice Kagan said the
act that the department used to
propagate this program is clear.
She said it could not be any
clearer that congress gave the
secretary the authority to waive
for or modify student lobe --
student loan requirements.
She said the court often gets
statues -- statutes that are not
clear.
But this one, she said congress
has made clear its intent.
John: There was discussion about
those two words, waive and
modify.
Marcia: That's right, another
issue in the case, justice
Thomas was saying waive and
modify, how does that accounted
cancellation as that can happen
in some student loans that are
being looked at?
The government argues that W it
isaive -- it is waive and modify
the student loans and once he
waved and modify them, he
imposed new ones.
Once being challenged today.
John: The conservative justices
talked about fairness as well.
Marcia: That was a very
interesting exchange.
Some of the justices, the chief
justice, justice Alito, justice
Kavanaugh, they spoke about how,
I think K was the chief justice
gave the best hypothetical.
He talked about two students who
graduate from high school, one
takes out a loan to go to
college, another takes out a
loan to create a lawn service.
Why should the student who goes
to college who will probably
make more than the lawn service
student in a lifetime, why
should that student have a debt
forgiven but not the lawn
service?
The government said clearly that
this act involves student loans.
It does not involve other types
of loans.
There are other types of aid
available to the lawn service
student who has that loan.
There is that concern.
They were asking whether they
should factor into their
analysis the idea of fairness.
John: Danielle, if this program
were to go away, what kind of
student loan borrower would be
most heavily affected?
Danielle: Because it student
loan debt is disproportionately
shouldered by black borrowers
and borrowers of color, they
would be the ones who would most
likely be impacted.
I think it is telling that the
administration chose to add
essentially a Pell grant bonus
allowing for borrowers who had
Aderholt Pell grant's for low
income students to receive an
additional $10,000.
Many people would qualify for
that because many of those who
have gone to college in the last
few decades have fewer resources
than in generations past.
John: Without this program, when
will the crunch, when will the
crunch come for these borrowers?
Danielle: The department of
education has said payments will
start to resume 60 days after a
decision is made.
Certainly no later than June of
this year.
Keep in mind, borrowers have not
made payments on their loans for
nearly three years at this
stage.
There is a lot of concern, and
this is the reason why.
The administration says this
policy is needed.
That many of those borrowers
will struggle to make payments
on their loans, they will become
delinquent, or potentially
default on their loans.
John: In January, the
administration unveiled a new
income based student repayment
plan.
How does that work?
Danielle: This plan pretty much
updates an existing student loan
repayment plan by assuring
borrowers pay less of their
discretionary income for a
shorter amount of time before
getting their student loans
forgiven.
For example, an undergraduate
borrower who has taken out
$12,000 or less in undergraduate
debt could pay 5% of their
discretionary income for 10
years before the balance of
their loans are forgiven.
John: One of the options -- what
are the options for the
administration if the plan gets
struck down?
Danielle: The administration
could try to make this happen
through an authority under the
higher education act.
That would require negotiated
rulemaking, which is a lengthy
process.
I think that came up today
during the arguments.
One of the reasons why it was
not the most salient route for
the administration is because it
undermines the idea that this is
for an emergency, and this is to
prevent any kind of fallout from
that national emergency.
The aga does not lend itself to
that argument, whereas at least
in the administration's views,
the heroes acted as.
John: The education department
or administration thinking about
these things?
Danielle: They are not telling
me.
I have been asking a lot the
last few days, and they keep
saying that they are very
competent that the heroes act
gives them the authority that is
needed to make sure this program
will go forward, and they are
confident that the supreme court
will agree.
Certainly after today's
arguments, lots of folks who are
watching this don't necessarily
take that optimistic of a view.
But at this moment, there is not
a concrete plan being publicly
discussed about what will happen
next if the plan is struck down
by the court.
John: Danielle douglas-gabriel
of the Washington post, Marcia
Coyle, newshour supreme court
analyst, thank you both very
much.
Marcia: Pleasure, John.
Danielle: Thank you.