The seemingly unrestrained approach of President Joe Biden to cancel student loans has hit a roadblock. A federal judge hailing from Missouri delivered a blow to Biden’s ambitious plan for broad loan forgiveness, intervening to temporarily suspend its progress. Just as an illusion of possibility manifested for the Biden administration’s overreach, U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp enforced a much-needed check and balance, granting an injunction that would prevent the ill-conceived plan from taking effect.
This stern legal obstruction was spurred by a clutch of six Republican states, who took prompt action after a federal judge in Georgia refused to continue the hold on Biden’s questionable policy. It’s worth noting this group of states was spearheaded by the forward-thinking attorney general of Missouri who pleaded for swift action to prevent the damage they anticipated from the ill-advised plan. Their fears centered around the potential for the precipitous dissolution of hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans, which they believed to be illegal.
It was for Judge Schelp a clear-cut case. The judge saw through the Biden administration’s smoke and mirrors, shedding light on the impracticality and potential illegality of the proposed actions. Despite this setback, the Education Department remained doggedly determined to champion its misguided proposal in court, seemingly ready to waste further resources and tax dollars in a futile struggle.
The legal challenge to Biden’s plans had been alive since September when the Republican-led states lodged a lawsuit in Georgia. Their contention was that Biden had arrogantly bypassed his legal bounds. However, U.S. District Court Judge J. Randal Hall made a puzzling decision and refused to continue the pause on the plan on slender grounds that Georgia lacked the legal right to file the suit.
In a twist, Hall transferred the case to Missouri, acknowledging the state’s ‘clear standing’ for challenging Biden’s audacious plan. For a fleeting moment, supporters of the irresponsibly unchecked eradication of student loan debt clung to a sliver of optimism. They saw an opportunity for the Education Department to cement the rule as Hall’s order was due to dissolve after Thursday. However, they were brought crashing back to reality by the timely intervention of Judge Schelp.
In a reassuring statement, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey upheld the legitimacy of this legal counteraction. He rightfully identified the inherent unfairness of Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’s plan; a scheme devised to unfairly offload Ivy League debt onto hardworking everyday Americans.
Despite the reality of the impossible logistics and unfair burden of Biden’s plan, it threatens to wipe clean the slates of 30 million borrowers. The audacity of the plan even takes it a step further, promising to slash away a whopping $20,000 in interest for those whose original loan amounts have snowballed thanks to uncontrolled interest growth. The scheme would also purportedly bring relief to those grappling with loans for two to three decades, and graduates burdened with debt disproportionate to their earnings.
Perhaps prematurely, Biden had sent instructions to his Education Department to pursue cancellation of student loans through a federal rulemaking process. This came in the wake of a warranted Supreme Court rejection of a previous plan that entail a different legal explanation, further amplifying the administration’s desperation and reckless disregard for the rule of law.
Indeed, the Supreme Court had scornfully tossed aside Biden’s initial proposal, deeming it legally dubious. This decisive legal judgment emerged from a case filed by several Republican states, including Missouri, underlining their persistent vigilance in offering checks and balances to unfettered administrative overreach.
Judge Hall’s ruling followed claims by Georgia that the potential harm posed by Biden’s ill-conceived plan was irritatingly downplayed. He tossed aside the valid concerns posed by Georgia regarding the inevitable dip in the state’s income tax revenue. Yet, he conceded Missouri had a robust case, further highlighting the inconsistencies at play.
The legal challenge lodged by Missouri serves the interests of MOHELA, a student loan servicer birthed by the state, whose livelihood the federal government engages to aid in student loan collection. The suit posited that such indiscriminate cancellation threatened MOHELA’s income as its earnings hinged on the number of borrowers it served. Hence, the lawsuit manifests genuine concern for domestic entities’ economic well-being, which might be disregarded under the Biden administration.
The Republican states document in their litigation the conjecture that the Education Department had been surreptitiously foreshadowing its intended loan cancellation since September 9. The allegations go further, claiming the typical 60-day waiting period associated with the implementation of newer federal rules had been conveniently sidestepped, offering a glimpse into the possible disregard for legislative formalities.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, and Ohio throw their weight behind the lawsuit, illustrating a broader collective resistance against unchecked administrative authority. Their united front adds gravitas to the opposition of this monumental circumvention of established law, portraying it as more than just a single state’s cause.
To conclude, Biden and Harris’s reign continues to showcase brazen administrative overreach propagated without deference to existing law or consideration for the long-term economic implications. Only time will tell how the courts will finally decide on this overambitious and potentially crushing student loan cancellation plan.