A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Biden administration's most recent attempt to provide student debt relief, dealing another setback to the president's efforts to fulfill a key campaign promise.
According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge J. Randal Hall in Georgia issued a temporary restraining order on September 5, 2024, just days after seven Republican-led states filed a lawsuit challenging the plan.
The ruling comes in response to a proposed rule by the Education Department that would allow for full or partial debt relief to certain types of borrowers. The plan, which could potentially affect an estimated 27.6 million borrowers, has not yet been finalized.
However, the state attorneys general claim they obtained documents showing the department had instructed federal loan servicers to begin canceling loans under the policy as early as this week.
Republican-Led States Challenge Debt Relief Authority
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Missouri, argues that the Education Department lacks the authority to implement such widespread debt forgiveness. The states estimate the cost of the policy to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, while the administration has projected a cost of $146.9 billion.
Judge Hall, an appointee of former Republican President George W. Bush, stated in his ruling that the states had established a likelihood of proving the Education Department's lack of authority to cancel student loans under this plan. He emphasized the relevance of recent rulings across the country that have struck down similar federal student loan forgiveness plans.
Ongoing Legal Battles Over Student Debt Relief
This latest legal challenge is part of a series of obstacles faced by the Biden administration in its attempts to provide debt relief to millions of Americans burdened by federal student loans. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a previous $430 billion program that would have canceled up to $20,000 in debt per borrower for up to 43 million Americans.
Following that setback, the administration pursued an alternative program called the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. This initiative was designed to lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers and accelerate loan forgiveness for some. However, Republican-led states successfully convinced a federal appeals court to block the SAVE plan while litigation continues.
Impact And Next Steps For Debt Relief Efforts
The temporary restraining order issued by Judge Hall has paused the implementation of the latest debt relief policy pending a hearing scheduled for September 18. This decision aims to preserve the status quo while considering the legal challenge.
Despite these setbacks, the Education Department under Biden has already approved $169 billion in debt relief for nearly 4.8 million people through various initiatives. An Education Department spokesperson stated, "The department is committed to supporting borrowers and fighting for relief for those who qualify."
The spokesperson also noted that the draft rule at issue would not be implemented until it was finalized, indicating that the department is reviewing the recent ruling.
As the legal battles continue, the issue of student debt relief remains a contentious topic in American politics. Republicans argue that debt forgiveness is unfair to taxpayers who would effectively be covering the cost of others' college educations.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, celebrated the ruling, stating:
Today is a huge victory for every working American who won't have to foot the bill for someone else's Ivy League debt.
Conclusion
The repeated legal challenges to Biden's student debt relief plans highlight the ongoing struggle between executive action and judicial restraint. Despite multiple setbacks, the administration's persistence in pursuing alternative relief options demonstrates this issue's political significance. Moving forward, the key factor may be how the Education Department justifies its authority for debt cancellation. They might overcome judicial scrutiny if they can present a compelling legal argument that differentiates this plan from previously struck-down initiatives.
