Opinion by Justin Haskins
Last week, the Supreme Court issued three important decisions that will impact public policymaking for decades.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of race in college admissions is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, dealing a major blow to affirmative action in education.
On Friday, the Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 decision that states cannot force workers to promote messages that violate their religious beliefs, a significant victory for those who support religious liberty.
But it was the high court’s decision on Friday to strike down President Biden’s plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt that could prove to be the most important – but perhaps not for the reason you think.
In Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration broke the law when it attempted to “cancel” $10,000 in student loan debt for Americans who earn less than $125,000 per year, and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.
The primary issue in the case centered on text included in the 2003 Heroes Act, which granted to the Department of Education the authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
For the first time since the law was passed, the Biden administration attempted to use the power to “waive or modify” to cancel massive amounts of student loan debt. In the past, it had only been utilized in very limited circumstances, such as waiving a provision that required students to provide a written request for a leave of absence.
The impact of Biden’s student debt cancellation plan would have been massive. As the Supreme Court noted in its decision, “The Department of Education estimates that the program will cover 98.5% of all borrowers,” at a cost of $430 billion.
And the potential effect it would have had on future debt cancellation plans and student behavior could have been even greater. If Biden were permitted to eliminate $430 billion in student debt overnight, what would stop him or a future presidential administration from “canceling” even more student loan debt?
Further, how would young Americans have altered the way they spend money or choose colleges if they knew whatever expenses they incur could end up being paid by other taxpayers or through government debt?
The reverberations of Biden’s debt cancellation program would surely have been felt for many years. But as important as these concerns are, the Supreme Court’s decision carries far more weight than merely addressing the direct and indirect costs of student debt cancellation plans. Biden v. Nebraska will likely affect numerous future executive actions taken by presidents and their executive branch departments, and not just those involving the Department of Education.
The primary legal battle in Biden v. Nebraska was not about student loan debt, but rather the authority of the executive branch to use vague wording in laws to enact sweeping reforms without the need for congressional action.
The Biden administration attempted to argue, as the Obama administration and other liberal governments had in the past, that broad legislative language could be used to do just about anything the federal government wants.
So, when the Heroes Act gave the Department of Education the power to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act],” it meant, according to the White House’s interpretation, Biden could create gigantic, costly debt cancellation programs that were never imagined by anyone in Congress who voted for the Heroes Act two decades ago.
This far-left view of lawmaking would open the door to seemingly endless abuses of power and expansions of government programs. For example, if Biden had prevailed in the case, who’s to say he wouldn’t have eventually canceled all student loan debt, or given every college student in America $10,000 in cash to help with living expenses? Surely, both of those reforms could also be called “modifications” of the law.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected this radical approach to rulemaking. Instead, it rightfully determined that Congress is the only body tasked by the Constitution with writing new laws, including those that would usher in a novel student debt cancellation scheme. Unless Congress has clearly and specifically given a regulatory agency the power to issue a reform, that agency cannot impose such a reform, regardless of whether it provides a benefit. In the past, when courts leaned further to the left, that was not always the case.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared, “the words ‘waive or modify’ do not mean ‘completely rewrite,’” and “this is a case about one branch of government arrogating to itself power belonging to another.… it is the Executive seizing the power of the Legislature.”
Roberts is exactly right. There is absolutely no evidence that the Republican-led Congress and Republican president who passed the Heroes Act in 2003 intended to give a future president the power to cancel student loan debt on a massive scale. And no honest, reasonable person would ever think that “modify” means “rewrite the law as you see fit, no matter the cost.”
Read More From PatriotAmerican
Of course, the far left doesn’t care about the intent of Congress in 2003, nor does it want to ensure that the legislative branch actually performs the legislating. All that matters for the far left is that the ends are accomplished, no matter the means.
Americans finally have a Supreme Court that is standing strong against such extreme efforts. Hopefully, that never changes.