 Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two cases, Biden v. Nebraska and the Department of Education v. Brown, and these cases are extremely important because they will determine the fate of Biden's student debt relief program. And unfortunately, it doesn't look too good. It seems as if those of us counting on the $10,000 to $20,000 worth of cancellation are going to be S.L.L. thanks to the Supreme Court. As Ian Millheiser of Vox explains, almost immediately after the argument began, the justices split into two partisan camps. The court's three Democratic appointees largely argued that the judiciary's job is to follow the text of federal law. As Justice Elena Kagan put it at one point, the HEROES Act is really quite clear here that this Student Loan Forgiveness program is allowed. Under this approach, that should be the beginning and the end of the court's inquiry, although it's worth noting that the three Democratic justices also asked questions suggesting that they do not believe that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear this case. With a handful of questions by Kavanaugh and Barrett aside, the six Republican appointees spent much of the argument fixated on concerns that if this student debt relief program is upheld, then the Biden administration would have too much power. Notably, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prolegar received some of the harshest questions from Chief Justice John Roberts, ordinarily the most moderate member of the court's Republican bloc, who immediately criticized the size of the program because he claimed it will lead to half a trillion dollars in loan obligations being waived. The court's Republican appointee spent much of the argument discussing policy disagreements with President Biden that have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether this loan forgiveness program is legal. Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, for example, all took turns criticizing Prolegar's position because this loan program benefits student borrowers and not say someone who took out a loan to start a lawn care business, Jesus Christ. The obvious response to this legally irrelevant objection to this program is that, as Justice Elena Kagan pointed out, Congress passed a statute that deals with loan repayment for student borrowers and it didn't pass a statute that provides loan forgiveness to people who own lawn care businesses. In other words, they're probably going to strike it down. If the most moderate Republican is against it, then I fully expect the more far-right justices to be in lockstep as well. So, kiss that 10 to $20,000. Goodbye, at least for now. But I think that before we get to what Biden can do, I just want to talk about how this really demonstrates that the justices are explicitly political. And by now, you and I know that, right? This isn't surprising. I'm not saying anything revolutionary, but they are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law of the Constitution. They're not supposed to take into account their own political biases. They're supposed to interpret statutes, but that's not what they're doing. They're just lining up with their team and they're being hacks. I mean, there's no more eloquent way to put it than that. They're f***ing hacks. Period. End of story. Now, the statute in question referenced here is a provision from the Heroes Act, which gives the Secretary of Education broad authority to waive or modify student loan obligations. But they're saying here, we disagree. But to suggest that the Biden administration overstep their authority here is laughable, considering Trump canceled $90 billion in student loan interest and Republicans didn't say shit. Now, the reason why is because they know that broad cancellation will encourage younger voters to support Democrats in the next election, and they can't have that. So what do they do? They sue the Biden administration to strike it down, and the Supreme Court will likely go along with it. Now, what happens next is very important because the Biden administration can prove to us that he actually does care about helping normal Americans by modifying the program. Now, there's one thing that he can do in particular that could still allow student debt forgiveness to go on, albeit in a more limited way. Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern explained in an article from August of 2022 that in the likely event the Supreme Court does strike down this student debt relief plan, Biden can simply announce that any borrower affected by the pandemic can apply for relief if they can prove hardship. Their debts get canceled. The Heroes Act of course says such case-by-case adjudication is unnecessary, and this method would increase administrative burdens while shrinking the pool of beneficiaries, since some eligible borrowers will fail to apply, but it will still help millions of people who will be in dire need of support when student loan repayments resume in 2023. There's a direct analogy to Virginia Governor Terry McCullough restoring felon voting rights one person at a time after the Virginia Supreme Court wouldn't let him do it all at once. That's one route that he can take, but that's not all. He arguably should have done the following thing in the first place. What I'm talking about is using his authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 instead of the Heroes Act of 2001, which was later amended in 2003, but here's what the experts say about that. Inside Higher Ed's Catherine not explains using the Heroes Act to cancel student loans was not the recommendation of Dolly Jimenez, a law professor at the University of California Irvine, and director of the Student Loan Law Initiative. She and other legal experts urged the Biden administration to use the Higher Education Act of 1965 as the legal justification for the debt relief plan. That law gives the Secretary of Education the authority to compromise, waive, or release the department's claims against borrowers. Now if the Biden administration used their authority under the Higher Education Act, instead of the Heroes Act, odds are Republicans would still challenge it, but it is more legally sound, whereas the Heroes Act was passed in 2001 to give the Education Secretary authority to waive or modify student debt for anyone affected by 9-11. But the law was later expanded in 2003 to give the Education Secretary that authority during national emergencies as well, and the Biden administration is saying that the COVID-19 pandemic is a national emergency. Therefore, we have the authority to cancel student debt. So in theory, justices could strike it down on the grounds that the law, at least with regard to the Heroes Act, is clearly intended to benefit Americans affected by war, and legally that would at least make some sense, even though it's still flimsy logic. But really, they're not making that argument either. They're instead peeved because it doesn't narrowly benefit Americans with lawn care businesses. That's just like one example. They don't like that working Americans get this benefit. They want businesses to get this benefit, or individuals with businesses to get this benefit. But I mean, maybe more student debt holders would start businesses if they weren't bogged down by debt. But either way, it was always going to be challenged and the Supreme Court will likely strike it down regardless of what law the Biden administration used to derive its authority from. But what matters is that the Biden administration continues to fight, but I'm not going to hold my breath. So if you were counting on $10,000 to $20,000 of your student debt being canceled, sorry, six far-right hacks on the illegitimate Supreme Court of Ours want you to keep suffering. So that's unfortunately going to be our fate unless the Biden administration fights tooth and nail.