Rule of Law

RELEASE: Justices Invoke Broad Statutory Authority Supporting Biden Administration Student Debt Relief Plan at Supreme Court Oral Argument this Morning

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Biden v. Nebraska, the first of two cases in which the Court is considering challenges to the Biden administration student debt relief plan, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh issued the following reaction:

The states challenging the Biden administration student debt relief plan argue that Congress did not give the Education Secretary the authority to relieve student debt in this way. Former Representative George Miller, one of the chief architects of the law that authorized the student debt relief plan, disagreed in a brief filed by the Constitutional Accountability Center. That brief demonstrated that the lawmakers who passed the Act gave the Secretary broad discretion to help borrowers affected by national emergencies.

Several Justices echoed Rep. Miller’s brief during today’s oral argument. As Justice Kagan noted, “Congress doesn’t get much clearer” than the Act’s text, which allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” rules relating to student loans, including those that identify the student debts the Education Department can reduce or discharge. “We worry about executive power when Congress hasn’t authorized use of executive power,” Justice Kagan said before adding that the Secretary is acting “within Congress’s authorization.”

Justice Sotomayor made a similar point, noting that the question before the Court is not the “amount of money,” but “Congress’s intent” to ensure that the Education Secretary can provide relief to student borrowers during periods of national emergencies. As she explained, reading the statute more narrowly than its text supports would put student borrowers at risk. “They are going to continue to suffer from this pandemic in a way the general public doesn’t,” she explained, adding that the states’ arguments would give judges, rather than experts, “the right to decide” how to help these borrowers.

As Rep. Miller’s brief makes clear, Congress gave the experts at the Education Department the broad authority to determine what “waivers” or “modifications” could best protect student borrowers in national emergencies. The Court should respect the law that Rep. Miller and his colleagues passed. Doing otherwise would not only hurt the ability of the Education Department to respond to future national emergencies, it would also harm the millions of student loan borrowers currently struggling as a result of this one.

##

Resources:

Case page in Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/biden-v-nebraska/

George Miller, Can Biden legally cancel student debt? There’s no question, Feb. 22, 2023: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/22/student-debt-cancellation-congress-heroes-act/ 

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
April 30, 2026

13th Annual Home Stretch at the Supreme Court

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center
This year’s Home Stretch at the Supreme Court panel discussion will be moderated by Law...
Participants: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, Easha Anand, Jennifer Bennett, Kelsi Brown Corkran, Chris Geidner, Melissa Murray
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.