The statement contains some accurate points but also oversimplifies the legal framework and intent behind student loan forgiveness programs. Here's a detailed analysis:
### **"All of the forgiveness programs enacted after the SCOTUS decision was well within the power of a POTUS to force a government agency to perform as intended by their statutory mandate under federal law."**
1. Accuracy of Post-SCOTUS Programs:
- After the Supreme Court struck down President Biden's original mass forgiveness plan under the HEROES Act (*Biden v. Nebraska*), the administration shifted its focus to narrower programs authorized by existing statutes, such as the **Higher Education Act (HEA)** and other targeted relief mechanisms.
- These programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Borrower Defense to Repayment, and relief for borrowers with disabilities, operate within statutory mandates explicitly granted by Congress. Therefore, they align with federal law and are generally considered within the president's authority to direct agencies like the Department of Education to implement.
2. Legal Challenges:
- While many post-SCOTUS forgiveness efforts comply with statutory mandates, critics argue that some actions (e.g., invoking broad HEA authority for new forgiveness plans) stretch the limits of executive power. For example, ongoing legal challenges claim that these actions are attempts to circumvent *Biden v. Nebraska* and may still exceed statutory authority.
"On a case-by-case basis only after proven that the lender violated lending law and/or misled a borrower.
1. Borrower Defense to Repayment:
- This program allows forgiveness on a case-by-case basis when borrowers can prove they were defrauded or misled by their schools. This aligns with federal law and is not blanket forgiveness but targeted relief for specific harm.
- However, this principle does not apply universally to all post-SCOTUS forgiveness efforts. Other programs, like PSLF or income-driven repayment adjustments (e.g., SAVE Plan), are not based on lender misconduct but rather on long-standing statutory provisions.
"It was never set up for any kind of blanket forgiveness like it was some kind of class-action lawsuit."
1. Mass Forgiveness vs. Targeted Relief:
- The Supreme Court ruled in *Biden v. Nebraska* that broad-based loan forgiveness under the HEROES Act exceeded executive authority because it constituted a "major question" requiring clear congressional authorization.
- However, targeted relief programs (e.g., PSLF, Borrower Defense) are not blanket forgiveness but are designed to address specific borrower circumstances under existing laws.
2. Higher Education Act Authority:
- The Biden administration's post-SCOTUS strategy includes exploring broader forgiveness through the HEA's provision allowing the Secretary of Education to "compromise, waive, or release" loans. Critics argue this could resemble blanket forgiveness if applied broadly, but it is subject to a formal rulemaking process and is narrower than the original HEROES Act plan.
The statement is partially accurate but oversimplifies important distinctions:
- Post-SCOTUS programs like PSLF and Borrower Defense operate within statutory mandates and are not blanket forgiveness.
- Broader efforts under the HEA may face legal challenges if perceived as circumventing *Biden v. Nebraska*.
- The claim that all relief must be case-by-case based on lender misconduct applies only to specific programs like Borrower Defense, not all forms of loan forgiveness.
