'Biden v. Nebraska': Apolitical Judiciary or a Political Judiciary?
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration implemented a program that would have brought significant financial relief to millions of borrowers across the nation. But instead, Biden v. Nebraska struck down the program and further unveiled a U.S. Supreme Court willing to engage in questionable legal analyses and stand in the place of other branches of government to garner an outcome favorable to its own political ideologies.
March 13, 2024 at 10:04 AM
7 minute read
Had it been successful, the Biden administration's Student Loan Forgiveness Program would have undoubtedly been one of the most—if not the most—administration-defining and society-changing initiatives of his presidency. The program's terms allowed for borrowers with an adjusted gross income below $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021, who had eligible federal loans, to receive loan cancellation up to $10,000 per borrower. For borrowers who received Pell Grants, they qualified for up to $20,000 in loan cancellation. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration implemented a program that would have brought significant financial relief to millions of borrowers across the nation. But instead, Biden v. Nebraska struck down the program and further unveiled a U.S. Supreme Court willing to engage in questionable legal analyses and stand in the place of other branches of government to garner an outcome favorable to its own political ideologies.
The administration's Student Loan Forgiveness Program was promulgated by the Secretary of Education via the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). The history of the HEROES Act is crucial to understanding the program's context and purpose. In 1991—in response to Operation Desert Storm—and in 2002—in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks—Congress authorized the secretary to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision" relating to student loan programs to help borrowers who had been affected by those crises. See 105 Stat. 93; 115 Stat. 2386. With those crises in the rearview, and Congress looking for a more permanent way to address future emergencies, Congress enacted the HEROES Act of 2003. The act allows the secretary to take steps "as he deems necessary" to ensure that student loan borrowers "are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to" their loans because of a "war … or national emergency." To do so, the act enables the secretary to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act." In place of the provisions the secretary "waives or modifies," he may "apply" new "terms and conditions" "in lieu of" the former ones. See Section 1098bb(b)(2).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState-Sanctioned Discrimination: Title IX’s Expansive Loophole for Religious Institutions
8 minute readFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250