The Buckeye Institute Calls on U.S. Supreme Court to End Biden Administration’s Illegal Student Debt Cancellation ProgramFeb 03, 2023
Columbus, OH – On Friday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Biden v. Nebraska and U.S. Department of Education v. Brown, with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Biden Administration’s student debt cancellation program exceeds the legal authority of the secretary of education to forgive student loan debt without congressional approval, is arbitrary and capricious, and was adopted in a procedurally improper manner.
“As The Buckeye Institute has argued in Latta v. U.S. Department of Education, the Biden Administration’s student debt cancellation program is likely illegal and will subject millions of Americans to the prospect of being held financially liable for their original loans, and for late fees, potentially increased interest rates, and other penalties or collection fees when the federal government recognizes that it still has a legal obligation to collect these loans,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute and an attorney in Latta v. U.S. Department of Education. “Before the U.S. Supreme Court is an opportunity to end this illegal program and tell the federal government it cannot forgo collecting nearly $500 billion in debt without congressional approval.”
In Latta v. U.S. Department of Education, The Buckeye Institute represents Amanda Latta, an employee of The Buckeye Institute. She is a graduate of Waynesburg University, for which she partially paid through the U.S. Department of Education’s Direct Loan Program. With federal student loans totaling more than $20,000, Ms. Latta is eligible for the program as it was outlined by the Biden Administration. However, given the likelihood of the courts finding the scheme to be illegal, under the terms of her promissory note with the Department of Education, Ms. Latta will be contractually liable for the full amount of her debt, plus increased interest rates, default penalties, and collection costs if she accepts this loan forgiveness that is not legal. She is now faced with the Hobson’s choice of (a) accepting the loan forgiveness knowing she will be financially liable if the program is ultimately deemed to be illegal or (b) forgoing the debt forgiveness to which she would be entitled if the Biden plan is found to be legal.
# # #