You have asked whether the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to address the financial hardship arising out of the COVID -19 pandemic by reducing or canceling the principal balances of student loans for a broad class of borrowers. We conclude that the Act grants that authority. The plain text of the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the federal student loan program, 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(a)(1) (emphasis added), an authority that encompasses provisions applicable to the repayment of the principal balances of loans, provided certain conditions are met. We conclude that targeting relief towards those individuals who suffered financial hardship because of COVID -19 and who otherwise satisfy the requirements of the Act accords with the Act's requirement that the
waiver or modification "be necessary to ensure that" student loan recipients who are "affected" by a national emergency "are not placed in a worse position financially" with respect to their loans as a result. Id. 1098bb(a)(2). Further, we believe that the Secretary may reasonably conclude that class-wide debt relief in these circumstances is appropriate.

It is true that the Supreme Court has invoked this made-up doctrine several times in the recent past -- mostly in opinions joined entirely by Republican-appointed justices who wished to strike down policies pushed by Democratic presidents -- but, in relying on this fabricated legal doctrine one more time, Roberts effectively cites past power grabs by the justices to justify a new power grab.

Let me end this piece as bluntly as it began. The Supreme Court's decision in Nebraska is not rooted in law, and it barely even attempts to resemble a legal decision. The Court overrules both elected branches. It rewrites a federal law. And it roots its decision in a fake legal doctrine with no basis in any actual legal text.

The high court handcuffed Congress and others who seek to block the executive branch from taking allegedly illegal actions. Lawmakers, as well as ordinary citizens, do not have standing to sue to challenge unconstitutional spending.

"Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with" the provision that authorizes the transfer of military funds, they said by a 5-4 vote in Trump vs. Sierra Club. This suggests that because Congress did not specifically authorize lawsuits over this part of the military spending law, no one may go to court to contest an allegedly illegal transfer.

Internal documents from the company at the heart of the Supreme Court case on student debt cancellation reinforce that it did not file, did not solicit, and indeed had nothing to do with the case at all.

The documents are internal emails from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a student loan servicer that conducts day-to-day operations on federal student loans.

In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn't made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn't plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.

MOHELA officials appear to have found out about the lawsuit on September 29, 2022, the day it was filed, from Scott Buchanan, the executive director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance, the lead trade group for the loan servicing industry.

The gun, which was fired by Alec Baldwin on the set of the movie "Rust," may have even been loaded with live rounds when it was used for what was essentially target practice, TMZ reported.

Multiple sources connected to the production of the film told TMZ that the gun was fired at off-the-clock gatherings " which could explain how a live round found its way into the gun's chamber.

Another source who was on set told the outlet that when cops arrived they found live ammo and blank rounds stored in the same area, where the fatal mix-up could have occurred.

Officials have not confirmed the claims, TMZ said.

And more than 40,000 people over 65 are having their Social Security payments, tax refunds, or other government payments garnished because they aren't paying their student loans. That number has more than tripled in the last decade.

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/senior-citizens-student-loans-student-debt-social-security- garnished-retirement.html#:~:text=And%20more%20than%2040%2C000%20people,Article%20continues%20after% 20video.

Researchers found that at the time of their initial Social Security garnishment, nearly half of borrowers age 50 and older had held their student loans for 20 years or more. A majority of these borrowers owed less than $10,000 when their benefits were first cut and many were hit with the maximum reduction, the GAO said. Seventy percent of the money collected through this form of garnishment from borrowers of all ages was applied to fees and interest, not the principle amount owed. Treasury charges a $15 monthly processing fee for wage and benefit garnishment.

And although Social Security cuts for many older Americans ended within a year, those with balances exceeding $20,000 endured the reduction for five years or more, according to the report. About 13 percent of borrowers older than 50 died with outstanding student loans.

The high court has handcuffed Congress and others who seek to block the executive branch from taking allegedly illegal actions. Lawmakers, as well as ordinary citizens, do not have standing to sue to challenge unconstitutional spending.

"Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with" the provision that authorizes the transfer of military funds, they said by a 5-4 vote in Trump vs. Sierra Club. This suggests that because Congress did not specifically authorize lawsuits over this part of the military spending law, no one may go to court to contest an allegedly illegal transfer.

The result is to shield the president and his administration from legal claims that he is diverting government funds to be spent for other purposes.

When Ronald Reagan won re-election, it was about 11.4, when George W. Bush did so it was 9, for Barack Obama it was 9.5, and today, as Joe Biden runs for re-election, it's only 7.7.

Biden should be cruising to an easy re-election victory. And that misery index number doesn't even begin to capture the strength of the American economy at the moment. There are a zillion positive indicators right now, as the folks in the administration will be quick to tell you. The economy has created 13 million jobs since Biden's Inauguration Day. According to the Conference Board, a business research firm, Americans' job satisfaction is at its highest level in 36 years. Household net worth is surging.

We learned Thursday that the U.S. economy grew at an annualized 2 percent rate in the first quarter of this year, well above the economists' expectations of around 1.4 percent. The best part of it is that the new prosperity is helping those who have long been left behind. In the four years of Donald Trump's administration, spending on manufacturing facilities grew by 5 percent. During the first two years of Biden's administration, such investment more than doubled and about 800,000 manufacturing jobs were created.

This is not just coincidence. It's a direct outcome of Biden policies: the Inflation Reduction Act, with its green technology provisions, the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act.

Biden's stimulative spending did boost the inflation rate, but inflation is now lower than in many other developed nations and our economy is stronger.

So Americans should be celebrating. But they are not.

First, on its internal logic, the decision can appear compelling. But step back and you see that a specific class of Americans who were enslaved for two centuries and then mostly lived under a system of legal apartheid for another century somehow still remain largely excluded from social and economic preferment. And we're told that the constitution not only bars the government from doing anything about that but also bars private institutions from attempting to do anything about that. Judged from that more holistic perspective it's very hard to see how that can possibly be right whatever the internal logic of "color blindness."

Second, the same people who wrote the amendments that undergird this decision also passed various laws specifically to raise Black social and economic power to the level of white people. So the Court's definition of "color blindness" simply cannot have been the intent of the authors of the amendment. The history is open and shut.

Third, the question of whether the constitution requires or looks favorably on racial diversity is a complex question and it's not entirely clear that it does, at least if we're limiting our analysis tightly to the intent of the people who wrote the relevant amendments. But if originalism or history plays any role in your jurisprudence, African-Americans represent a unique class which the constitution specifically intends to raise to the level of white people. One could argue that that task is done somehow, or that society has changed in some respect that makes the original injunction operate differently or that affirmative and compensatory educational preferment is somehow uniquely damaging and thus a disallowed means of achieving that aim. But again, specifically for African-Americans, the "color blindness" constitutional argument doesn't add up.