A key move to cancel part of U.S. President Joe Biden’s massive student loan debt appeared to be in jeopardy during a hearing before the conservative U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.
A majority of its justices believed that the Democratic administration had exceeded its powers by adopting this costly program without the express authorization of Congress.
Outside the White Marble Building in Washington, a demonstration with a highly political overtones attempted to influence their position.
“We’re asking the Supreme Court to listen to the needs of millions of people who want to live like the middle class without being strangled by debt,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, champion of the American left, surrounded by young people. .
Omamus Ogheni, a 20-year-old neuroscience student, has already borrowed $31,000 to finance his studies. “I am in a very dangerous situation,” he told AFP.
They are crazy
Higher education in the United States is expensive, and nearly 43 million Americans are repaying federal student loans, totaling $1630 billion.
At the start of the pandemic, Republican President Donald Trump’s administration froze repayment of these loans under a 2003 law that allows for “relief” for student loan holders in the event of a “national emergency.”
This operation continues unabated till now.
In late August, President Biden, a self-proclaimed champion of the working class, wanted to go further: announcing the elimination of $10,000 and $20,000 from borrowers making less than $125,000 a year. Dollars for former scholarship recipients.
Candidates rushed in and 26 million applications were filed, putting the state’s overall bill at more than $400 billion, according to the White House.
“surprise”
However, after being seized by a coalition of Republican states, Justice blocked the program from being implemented by two students who were not eligible for the $20,000 waiver.
The plaintiffs allege that the Democratic administration squandered taxpayer money without congressional approval. According to them, the 2003 Act involves moratorium, not cancellation of debt.
Rep. Jim Campbell of Nebraska pleaded that “after several failed legislative efforts,” the government “attempted to bypass Congress on one of the most hotly debated political issues of the moment.”
His arguments seemed to appeal to conservative judges. “Shouldn’t Congress be surprised when nearly $500 billion is wiped off the slate?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked, in particular, that he was very sensitive about respecting secessionist powers.
2003 “The Minister of Education acted fully within his competence and in accordance with the central purpose of the Act”, replied Elizabeth Preloger on behalf of the Federal Government.
The decision to declare a health emergency “does not change the program’s legal rationale (…): millions of borrowers weakened by the pandemic and at risk of default,” White House spokeswoman Olivia Dalton said. Comments to reporters.
“no harm”
The High Court has already struck down several setbacks in democratic governance, invalidating measures taken to prevent evictions or to vaccinate certain populations during pandemics.
To avoid a new ordeal, the government pleads that the plaintiffs have no right of action because they “suffered no prejudice.” Ms. Preloger asked the court to dismiss her complaint, which would allow her to close the case without ruling on the merits.
The three progressive justices agreed with the receptive ear of their conservative colleague Amy Coney Barrett.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t follow this path, the case could be used to reaffirm that federal agencies and the government can’t act on critical matters without a green light from Congress.
Progressive Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that “it would create a problem for the federal government’s ability to function,” as many of his colleagues were swayed by the option.
The court will give its verdict by June 30.
This article was published automatically. Sources: ats / afp
“Avid gamer. Social media geek. Proud troublemaker. Thinker. Travel fan. Problem solver.”