The United States Supreme Court on Friday shot down President Biden鈥檚 attempt to provide millions of borrowers with student-loan debt relief.
The 6 to 3 decision comes after the administration in August sought to provide up to $10,000 in loan relief to borrowers who make $125,000 or less annually, or up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.
The White House initially stated the benefit would have affected more than 3.3 million Texas borrowers who were eligible for the loan relief, and 2.3 million who received Pell Grants, according to a White House But in an earlier this year, the White House put the number of Texans who would applied or would have been automatically eligible for relief at more than 2.1 million after 鈥渆lected officials and special interests鈥� blocked some of the relief.
The Biden administration argued that under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students, or HEROES, Act of 2003, the administration had the authority to cancel the debt. That鈥檚 because the act 鈥渁uthorizes the Secretary to 鈥渨aive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision鈥� applicable to the federal student loan program. The administration said the COVID-19 pandemic鈥檚 effects on the economy justified the debt-forgiveness plan.
But a majority of the justices said instead that the U.S. Secretary of Education doesn鈥檛 have the authority to rewrite the statute.
鈥淭he Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not,鈥� the , written by Chief Justice John Robert, states. 鈥淲e hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to 鈥榳aive or modify鈥� existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up.鈥�
Instead, Roberts said, that duty belongs to the U.S. Congress.
鈥淭he words 鈥榳aive or modify鈥� do not mean 鈥榗ompletely rewrite鈥�; and that our precedent鈥� old and new鈥攔equires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy,鈥� he wrote.
The lawsuit was brought by Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina.
Also on Friday, the country鈥檚 high court rejected a separate lawsuit that originated out of Texas after two borrowers who would not have qualified for forgiveness argued the administration did not follow proper rulemaking policies when it was implemented. But in a unanimous the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing, or the legal right to sue.
The debt-relief program would have , leading several Republicans to decry the burden the cancelation would have placed on taxpayers, including those who never attended college.
In late 2022, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined nearly two dozen in sending a letter to the Biden administration admonishing the president for the effort, arguing that the debt cancelation will 鈥漟orce American taxpayers to pay off the student loan debt of an elite few.鈥�
The Republican governors also stated that former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi previously said that the president doesn鈥檛 have the power to cancel debt on his own, which Roberts also noted in the opinion.
鈥淎s then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: 鈥淧eople think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,鈥欌�� he quoted.
Texas Democrats were quick to slam the decision. U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso, said the decision is in line with the extreme decisions it issued this term on affirmative action, abortion and LGBTQ rights.
鈥淣ow, the very justices taking luxury trips funded by billionaires have decided college should remain a debt sentence for millions of Americans,鈥� she , making a reference to recent about some of the justices鈥� relationships with wealthy donors who have business before the court.
This story has been updated with reactions to the decision and updated figures on how many Texans would have been eligible for the debt relief.