President Joe Biden has requested that the Supreme Court reinstate a $475 billion student loan relief plan, which was blocked by an appeals court two weeks ago. The government filed an emergency application on August 13th after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit temporarily halted the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan while litigation continues. The case, known as Biden v. Missouri, is now before the Supreme Court.
The SAVE plan, proposed by U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in August 2022, aims to reduce monthly payments for eligible borrowers and expedite loan forgiveness for others. Approximately 8 million borrowers have already signed up for the program.
However, in June 2023, before the SAVE plan was finalized, the Supreme Court struck down a previous $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan in Biden v. Nebraska.
The Eighth Circuit determined that Missouri and six other states challenging the SAVE plan would likely be able to prove that it violates the major questions doctrine. This doctrine requires courts to assume that Congress does not delegate important policy questions to government agencies.
As a result of this ruling, federal forgiveness of principal or interest on outstanding student loans has been temporarily halted nationwide. Additionally, interest calculation on loans has been blocked and provisions allowing borrowers to make low or zero monthly payments based on income have been paused.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision conflicts with an order issued by the Tenth Circuit in Alaska v. U.S Department of Education on June 30th which allowed repayments based on income to begin temporarily.
On August 22nd, however, the Tenth Circuit issued a new order deferring to both the Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court while they attempt to resolve this dispute over the SAVE plan.
President Biden’s filing argues that this new ruling from Tenth Circuit further supports vacating or narrowing Eighth Circuit’s universal injunction so that implementation of SAVE can proceed either fully or partially.
According to U.S Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s brief presented to Supreme Court: “One circuit should not be able inhibit development of ‘thoughtful precedent at circuit level’ by issuing an injunction with universal reach…where more tailored relief would fully redress plaintiffs’ asserted injury.”
Nationwide injunctions have sparked controversy within legal circles recently as they extend beyond specific cases involved and affect parties not directly related to litigation.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have criticized such nationwide injunctions previously.
Gorsuch wrote in 2020: “It is difficult see how court is still acting within its judicial role…when federal courts issue nationwide injunctions affecting parties not involved in litigation.”
If Supreme Court declines vacating or narrowing Eighth Circuits’ universal injunction then it should treat application as petition for certiorari (review) and fast-track oral arguments in Biden v.Missouri according Prelogar’s brief.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey did not respond when reached out for comment by The Epoch Times.
While currently pending during summer recess,the government’s application remains under consideration by Supreme Court who could issue their ruling at any time