President Biden’s student loan relief plan faces a do-or-die moment on Tuesday as it reaches the Supreme Court for oral arguments.
The up to $20,000 in debt relief that could go to millions of Americans faces two challenges: one from six Republican-led states, Biden v. Nebraska, and another from two student loan borrowers, Department of Education v. Brown.
Biden’s plan to save one of his biggest campaign promises hinges on two arguments.
The administration says that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona had the authority to forgive the debt under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act.
But legal observers suggest the closer question could be whether the justices reach the merits at all. The Biden administration contends that neither group of challengers has standing, meaning the legal capacity to sue.
With the lower courts placing the plan on hold, the Biden administration now must face a conservative-majority Supreme Court in its efforts to give borrowers relief.
Here is what you need to know about the legal issues in the two student debt relief cases: What is the HEROES Act?
The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students, or HEROES, Act has only recently come back into focus, but it was passed two decades ago with bipartisan support as the country headed to war following the 9/11 terror attacks.
The law gives the education secretary authority to “waive or modify” federal student financial assistance programs “as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
The Trump administration began using HEROES Act authority to pause student loan payments after declaring the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency in 2020.
After Biden took office, his administration extended the emergency and the payment pause before announcing the debt relief plan last year.
The administration has said the HEROES Act’s plain text authorizes Cardona to forgive the debts, and that his decision to do so was reasonable. He has put forward data showing that many borrowers are at risk of defaulting on their loans if the payment pause ends without the debt relief.
“The federal government provides relief to people affected by crises all the time, and that relief flows not just immediately after the crisis, but in the months and years afterwards,” said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer at the Public Rights Project, which filed a brief supporting the administration on behalf of local governments.
“So I think this is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate step for the Secretary to take, given all the information that was before him in the department at the time,” Miller added.
After the Supreme Court took up the challenges, Biden announced the COVID-19 emergency will end in May, but the administration says that doesn’t affect its debt relief plan.
Meanwhile, the administration has argued that ending the emergency moots a separate Supreme Court case involving Title 42, which limits migrants’ ability to seek asylum on public health grounds.
But the White House believes student debt relief is different because it concerns economic consequences that will persist beyond the emergency, rather than stopping the spread of disease, according to people familiar with the administration’s legal strategy.
“Our debt relief plan is needed to prevent defaults and delinquencies as student borrowers transition back to repayment after the end of the payment pause,” an administration official said. “The national emergency formally ending does not change that fact. It also does not change the legal justification for the plan.” How have the courts ruled so far?
Federal appeals courts have blocked the plan in both cases pending further action by the Supreme Court.
In the challenge from the conservative states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina — a three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by Republican presidents, issued a temporary injunction in the fall.
A federal trial judge in Texas ruled in favor of the individual challengers and separately blocked the debt relief plan in November. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld that ruling.
The Biden administration appealed both cases to the Supreme Court, and the justices agreed in December to take up both cases. What do the plan’s opponents say?
Both groups of challengers contend Cardona overstepped his authority under the HEROES Act.
The individual borrowers argue he was required to provide a comment period on the proposal before implementing it.
Both groups argue the debt relief plan invokes the “major questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to decide matters of vast economic and political significance.
Echoing a lower court ruling, the plan’s critics assert that taking the administration’s position means the executive branch could cite the pandemic’s lingering effects even 10 years down the road to forgive the debts without consulting Congress.
“This case is not so much about the wisdom of that decision. It’s about in a democratic, self-governing society, how are we going to make these kinds of decisions?” said Casey Mattox, vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, which filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers.
The court has cemented the major questions doctrine in three recent cases: stopping the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction freeze during the pandemic, blocking the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers and striking down a power plant rule last June.
Thomas Berry, editor-in-chief of “Cato Supreme Court Review” at the Cato Institute, which filed an amicus brief siding with the challengers, said the precedents give a clear indication that a majority of the justices will be skeptical of the debt relief plan.
“If they reach the merits, I would be fairly confident that the action will be struck down,” Berry said. “I think the closer question is whether they reach the merits at all.” Biden admin argues challengers lack standing to sue
The Biden administration believes none of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the debt relief.
Three states cited economic impacts from how some borrowers are now consolidating their loans, and four said their tax revenues will take a hit.
Missouri shows perhaps the most compelling theory by arguing the plan will harm its student loan service, legal observers say, but the administration is likely to push back that any harm is still speculative.
“I just don’t think it really comports here, because it’s very clear that loan forgiveness ultimately is a net benefit for the states,” said Miller.
His group’s brief argues that forgiveness would make it easier for borrowers to start a business or own a home, spurring economic growth. Republicans request documents from Biden’s Supreme Court commission Appeals court rules North Carolina can’t ban undercover cameras from PETA
The two individual borrowers, who did not qualify for the relief, contend that they can bring their suit because Cardona’s failure to provide a comment period unfairly deprived them of a concrete interest.
The Biden administration asserts stopping the debt relief would not redress their injury, a component needed for standing.
“That judgment leaves Brown’s financial position unchanged; she would still receive no loan forgiveness,” the administration wrote in its brief. “And it would leave Taylor worse off than before; he would receive neither the $10,000 the plan provides nor the $20,000 he purports to seek, but instead nothing at all.”
The cost of having staff is going up this Sunday as the increase in employers’ national insurance kicks in.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the October budget employers will have to pay a 15% rate of national insurance contributions (NIC) on their employees from 6 April – up from 13.8%.
She also lowered the threshold at which employers pay NIC from £9,100 a year to £5,000 a year, meaning they start paying at an earlier point on staff salaries.
This is on top of the national minimum wage rising, the business relief rate for hospitality, retail and leisure reducing from 75% to 40% and the rising cost of ingredients and services.
Sky News spoke to people working in some of the industries that will be hardest hit by the rise in NIC: Nurseries, hospitality, retail, small businesses and care.
NURSERIES
Nearly all (96% of 728) nurseries surveyed by the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) said they will have no choice but to put up fees because of the NIC rise, leaving parents to pick up the shortfall.
More on Cost Of Living
Related Topics:
The NDNA has warned nurseries could close due to the rise, with 14% saying their business is at risk, 69% reducing spending on resources and 39% considering offering fewer places with government-funded hours as 92% said they do not cover their costs.
Sarah has two children, with her youngest starting later this month, but they were just informed fees will now be £92 a day – compared with £59 at the same nursery when her eldest started five years ago.
“I’m not sure how we will afford this. Our salaries haven’t increased by 50% during this time,” she said.
“We’re stuck as there aren’t enough nursery spaces in our area, so we will have to struggle.”
Karen Richards, director of the Wolds Childcare group in Nottinghamshire, has started a petition to get the government to exempt private nurseries – the majority of providers – from the NIC changes as she said it is unfair nurseries in schools do not have to pay the NIC.
She told Sky News she will have to find about £183,000 next year to cover the increase across her five nurseries and reducing staff numbers is “not off the table” but it is more likely they will reduce the number of children they have.
Image: Joeli Brearley, founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, said parents are yet again having to pay the price for the government’s actions. Pic: Pregnant Then Screwed
Joeli Brearley, founder of the Pregnant Then Screwed campaign group, told Sky News: “Parents are already drowning in childcare costs, and now, thanks to the national insurance hike, nurseries are passing even more fees on to families who simply can’t afford it.
“It’s the same story every time – parents pay the price while the government looks the other way. How exactly are we meant to ‘boost the economy’ when we can’t even afford to go to work?”
Purnima Tanuku, executive chair of the NDNA, said staffing costs make up about 75% of nurseries’ costs and they will have to find £2,600 more per employee to pay for the NIC rise – £47,000 for an average nursery.
“The government says it wants to offer ‘cheaper childcare’ for parents on the one hand but then with the other expects nurseries to absorb the costs of National Insurance Contributions themselves,” she told Sky News.
“High-quality early education and care gives children the best start in life and enables parents to work. The government must invest in this vital infrastructure to make sure nurseries can continue to deliver this social and economic good.”
HOSPITALITY
The hospitality industry has warned of closures, price rises, lack of growth and shorter opening hours.
Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, a small southwest England restaurant and country pub/hotel group, said the economic situation now is “much worse” than during COVID.
The group has put plans for two more projects on hold and Mr Brod said the only option is to put up prices, but with the rising supplier costs, wages, business rates and NIC hike they will “stay still” financially.
Image: Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, said the government does not value hospitality as an industry. Pic: The Beckford Group
He told Sky News: “What we’re nervous about is we’re still in the cost of living crisis and even though our places are in very wealthy areas of the country, Wiltshire, Somerset and Bath, people are feeling the situation in their pockets, people are going out less.”
Mr Brod said they are not getting rid of any staff as their business strongly depends on the quality of their hospitality so they are having to make savings elsewhere.
“I’m still optimistic, I still feel that humans need hospitality but we’re not valued as an industry and the social benefit is never taken into account by government.”
Image: Chef/owner Aktar Islam, who runs Opheem in Birmingham, said the rise will cost him up to £120,000 more this year. Pic: Opheem
Aktar Islam, owner/chef at two Michelin-starred Opheem in Birmingham, said the NIC rise will cost him up to £120,000 more in staff costs a year and to maintain the financial position he is in now they would have to make “another million pounds”.
He got emails from eight suppliers on Thursday saying they were raising their costs, and said he will have to raise prices but is concerned about the impact on diners.
The restaurateur hires four commis chefs to train each year but will not be able to this year, or the next few.
“It’s very short-sighted of the government, you’re not going to grow the economy by taxing hospitality out of existence, these sort of businesses are the lifeblood of our economy,” he said.
“They think if a hospitality business closes another will open but people know it’s tough, why would they want to do that? It’s not going to happen.”
The chef sent hundreds of his “at home” kits to fellow chefs this week for their staff as an acknowledgement of how much of a “s*** show” the situation is – “a little hug from us”.
RETAIL
Some of the UK’s biggest retailers, including Tesco, Boots, Marks & Spencer and Next, wrote to Rachel Reeves after the budget to say the NIC hike would lead to higher consumer prices, smaller pay rises, job cuts and store closures.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC), representing more than 200 major retailers and brands, said the costs are so significant neither small or large retailers will be able to absorb them.
Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, told the Treasury committee in November that job losses due to the NIC changes were likely to be higher than the 50,000 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
Image: Big retailers have warned the NIC rise will lead to higher prices, job cuts and store closures. File pic: PA
Nick Stowe, chief executive of Monsoon and Accessorize, said retailers had the choice of protecting staff numbers or cancelling investment plans.
He said they were trying to protect staff numbers and would be increasing prices but they would likely have to halt plans to increase store numbers.
Helen Dickinson, head of the BRC, told Sky News the national living wage rise and NIC increase will cost businesses £5bn, adding more than 10% to the cost of hiring someone in an entry-level role.
A further tax on packaging coming in October means retailers will face £7bn in extra costs this year, she said.
“This huge cost burden will undoubtedly reduce investment in stores and jobs and is likely to lead to higher prices,” she added.
SMALL BUSINESSES
A massive 85% of 1,400 small business owners surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in March reported rising costs compared with the same time last year, with 47% citing tax as the main barrier to growth – the highest level in more than a decade.
Just 8% of those businesses saw an increase in staff numbers over the last quarter, while 21% had to reduce their workforce.
Kate Rumsey, whose family has run Rumsey’s Chocolates in Wendover, Buckinghamshire and Thame, Oxfordshire, for 21 years, said the NIC rise, minimum wage increase and business relief rate reduction will push her staff costs up by 15 to 17% – £70,000 to £80,000 annually.
To offset those costs, she has had to reduce opening hours, including closing on Sundays and bank holidays in one shop for the first time ever, make one person redundant, not replace short-term staff and introduce a hiring freeze.
The soaring price of cocoa has added to her woes and she has had to increase prices by about 10% and will raise them further.
Image: Kate Rumsey, who runs Rumsey’s Chocolates in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, said they are being forced to take a short-term view to survive. Pic: Rumsey’s Chocolates
She told Sky News: “We’re very much taking more of a short-term view at the moment, it’s so seasonal in this business so I said to the team we’ll just get through Q1 then re-evaluate.
“I feel this is a bit about the survival of the fittest and many businesses won’t survive.”
Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the FSB, said the NIC rise “holds back growth” and has seen small business confidence drop to its lowest point since the first year of the pandemic.
With the “highest tax burden for 70 years”, she called on the chancellor to introduce a “raft of pro-small business measures” in the autumn budget so it can deliver on its pledge for growth.
She reminded employers they can claim the Employment Allowance, which has doubled after an FSB campaign to take the first £10,500 off an employer’s annual bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
National Insurance rise impacts carers
CARE
The care sector has been warning the government since the October that budget care homes will be forced to close due to the financial pressures the employers’ national insurance rise will place on them.
Care homes receive funding from councils as well as from private fees, but as local authorities feel the squeeze more and more their contributions are not keeping up with rising costs.
The industry has argued without it the NHS would be crippled.
Raj Sehgal, founding director of ArmsCare, a family-run group of six care homes in Norfolk, said the NIC increase means a £360,000 annual impact on the group’s £3.6m payroll.
In an attempt to offset those costs, the group is scrapping staff bonuses and freezing management salaries.
It is also considering reducing day hours, where there are more staff on, so the fewer numbers of night staff work longer hours and with no paid break.
Image: Raj Sehgal said his family-owned group of care homes will need £360,000 extra this year for the NIC hike
Mr Sehgal said: “But what that does do unfortunately, is impact the quality you’re going to be able to provide, at a time when we need to be improving quality, but something has to give.
“The government just doesn’t seem to understand that the funding needs to be there. You cannot keep enforcing higher costs on businesses and not be able to fund those without actually finding the money from somewhere.”
He said the issue is exacerbated by the fact local authority funding, despite increasing to 5%, will not cover the 10% rise.
“It’s going to be a really, really tough ride. And we are going to see a number of providers close their doors,” he warned.
Nadra Ahmed, executive co-chair of the National Care Association, said those who receive, or are waiting to access, care as well as staff will feel the impact the hardest.
“As providers see further shortfalls in the commissioning of care services, they will start to limit what they can do to ensure their viability or, as a last resort exit the market,” she said.
“This is very short-sighted, with serious consequences, which alludes to the understanding of this government.”
Government decided to ‘wipe the slate clean’
A Treasury spokesperson told Sky News the government is “pro-business” but has “taken the difficult but necessary decisions to wipe the slate clean and properly fund our public services after years of declines”.
“Our budget choices have already delivered an NHS with falling waiting lists, a £3.7bn rescue package for social care, and vital protection for Britain’s small businesses,” they said.
“We’re making tough choices today to secure a better tomorrow through our Plan for Change. By investing in economic growth and early years education while capping corporation tax, we’re putting more money in working people’s pockets and giving every child the best start in life.”
Russell Brand has been charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault between 1999 and 2005.
The Metropolitan Police say the 50-year-old comedian, actor and author has also been charged with one count of oral rape and one count of indecent assault.
The charges relate to four women.
He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday 2 May.
Police have said Brand is accused of raping a woman in the Bournemouth area in 1999 and indecently assaulting a woman in the Westminster area of London in 2001.
He is also accused of orally raping and sexually assaulting a woman in Westminster in 2004.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:59
Ashna Hurynag discusses Russell Brand’s charges
The fourth charge alleges that a woman was sexually assaulted in Westminster between 2004 and 2005.
Police began investigating Brand, from Oxfordshire, in September 2023 after receiving a number of allegations.
The comedian has denied the accusations and said he has “never engaged in non-consensual activity”.
He added in a video on X: “Of course, I am now going to have the opportunity to defend these charges in court, and I’m incredibly grateful for that.”
Metropolitan Police Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.
“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police.”
Search teams are looking for a 16-year-old boy who went missing after “getting into difficulty” in a lake in southeast London.
Officers and paramedics were called shortly after 3pm on Friday to Beckenham Place Park in Lewisham.
The Metropolitan Police said the boy’s family has been told and are being supported by specialist officers.
In a statement, officers added that emergency services are “co-ordinating a search” and “the park has been evacuated”.
Beckenham Place Park, which borders the London borough of Bromley, covers around 240 acres, according to the park’s website.
Image: Emergency teams were called to Beckenham Place Park on Friday afternoon
The lake is described as 285 metres long, reaching depths of up to 3.5 metres. It is designed as a swimming lake for open-water swimming and paddle boarding.
A London Ambulance Service spokesperson said: “We were called at 3.02pm this afternoon to reports of a person in the water.
More from UK
“We sent resources to the scene, including an ambulance crew, an incident response officer and members of our hazardous area response team.
“We are still at the scene working alongside our emergency services partners.”
Emergency teams have not explained how the boy entered the water, or whether he was accompanied by others.