Progressives have long urged Democratic leadership to offer wide-scale student debt relief. Biden’s plan, which would have canceled up to $20,000 in federal student loans for some borrowers, was the result of these pleas.
But debt-forgiveness advocates’ victory was wiped out when the conservative majority on the high court ruled Biden’s plan unconstitutional. Biden, however, very quickly announced a new strategy.
How fast can the president’s new plan come to fruition? Will this Plan B also face legal challenges?
Hello friends, I’m Erin B. Logan. I cover national politics for the Los Angeles Times. This week, we are going to discuss student loan debt and efforts to cancel it.
Get our Essential Politics newsletter
The latest news, analysis and insights from our politics team.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Same plan, different law
When Biden announced last summer a plan to cancel up to $20,000 for certain federal borrowers, he faced criticism from the right.
Some Republicans alleged the cancellation was essentially a handout for college-educated voters, who are more likely to vote Democratic. Others alleged executive overreach.
Biden initially relied on a 2003 law that authorized loan relief for those affected by war or a national emergency — the COVID-19 pandemic, in this case — as the legal backing for his actions. Now that the high court has blocked that path, Biden will try to use a different law, the 1965 Higher Education Act, to make his plan reality.
As Times staff writer David G. Savage reported, advocates of forgiving student loans argue that the 1965 law gives the Education Secretary Miguel Cardona broad authority to “compromise, waive or release” students’ federal debts. Cardona has already used this act to forgive $6 billion to some borrowers. The new plan would go further.
This Plan B has downsides, however. Notably, it is time consuming. The law requires public hearings and a comment period before Cardona can move forward with canceling debt. But the administration began the regulatory process within hours of the Supreme Court decision, Cardona told reporters last week.
Another legal challenge?
Though Biden’s legal team contends that circumventing the high court’s decision through the 1965 act is legally sound, the effort is almost certain to face court challenges.
The Republican Party is already blasting this new strategy. In a statement, North Carolina GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx called Biden’s decision to use the 1965 law to cancel debt “illegal, inflationary, and irresponsible.”
Foxx, who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, added: “Taxpayers just got sucker punched — again — by this administration.”
The latest from the campaign trail
—A prominent group that represents LGBTQ+ conservatives says a video shared by Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign “ventured into homophobic territory” in slamming rival Donald Trump for his past support for gay and transgender people, the Associated Press reported.
—The visit to Idaho, which kicked off Gov. Gavin Newsom’s second tour through red states over the past few months, was all about shoring up enthusiasm for Biden’s accomplishments and touting party accomplishments, while showering beleaguered local Democrats with some love, attention and a little campaign cash from his political action committee Campaign for Democracy, Times writer Hannah Wiley reported.
—Moms for Liberty, a “parental rights” group that has sought to take over school boards in multiple states, is looking to expand those efforts across the country and to other education posts in 2024 and beyond, the Associated Press reported. The effort is setting up a clash with teachers unions and others on the left who view the group as a toxic presence in public schools.
Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times
Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Become a subscriber.
The view from Washington
—The Supreme Court ruled Friday that conservative Christians have a free-speech right to refuse to provide some business services for same-sex marriages, even in states like California where civil rights laws forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, Times writer David G. Savage reported.
—The Supreme Court’s conservatives were not quite as predictable or as aggressively activist as some on the right would prefer and many on the left feared, Savage reported. The old-fashioned conservative virtues of restraint and moderation reappeared at times.
—A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni, the Associated Press reported.
The view from California
—California lawmakers are taking on the entertainment juggernaut, introducing bills this year aimed at helping consumers, Times writer Queenie Wong reported. Whether their proposals will succeed, however, is in question.
—As the first heat wave of summer plunges California into yet another wildfire season, some environmental groups are taking aim at a commercial fire retardant that most residents have grown all too familiar with during recent, devastating fire years, Times writer Hayley Smith reported.
—An unusually long and tumultuous fight for power in the California Capitol finally came to an end Friday as Robert Rivas was sworn in as speaker of the Assembly, claiming one of the most influential positions in state politics more than a year after he first tried to secure the gavel, Times writers Laurel Rosenhall and Hannah Wiley reported.
Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting. And don’t forget to follow me on Twitter and send pictures of your adorable furbabies to me at erin.logan@latimes.com.