An amicus brief was filed on Friday on behalf of former lawmakers who were instrumental in the passage of the HEROES Act, including former House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), arguing the 2003 law cannot be used by the Biden administration to forgive millions of borrower’s student loan debt.
Boehner, who was Chairman of Education and Labor when the HEROES Act passed, was joined by former Reps. Howard McKeon (R-CA) and John Kline (R-MN) in an amicus brief filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation in a pair of cases against President Joe Biden’s debt relief plan, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on Feb. 28. The administration has said it has authority via the 2003 law to forgive millions of dollars in student debt due to the financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic.
ENDING THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY COULD ENDANGER BIDEN EXECUTIVE POWER GRABS
“Congress did not, and surely could not, have ever expected the Act to be misused and distorted by the Department in the policy now before this Court,” PLF wrote in the brief filed on behalf of the former GOP lawmakers.
The filing notes that McKeon intended for the law to serve as a limited measure in direct response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “It was meant, as its text reflected, to provide emergency administrative relief for those men and women who put themselves in harms way in service of our country,” according to the 33-page filing.
PLF was one of the first groups to bring legal actions against the president’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 in loans for certain borrowers. The group currently has a challenge to the plan pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Despite the trio of former GOP lawmakers standing against Biden’s use of the HEROES Act, another former Democratic lawmaker who helped draft the 2003 measure previously said he believed the Education Department does have broad authority to forgive debt burdens after national emergencies.
Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who also helped to build out the HEROES Act, filed an amicus brief in November saying that “the Act confers significant authority on the Secretary to ease the burdens on borrowers who have been affected by unexpected national emergencies. And that is exactly what the Secretary has done here.”
Last month, more than a dozen economists, legal experts, and scholars filed amicus-curiae briefs arguing the future of loan repayments hinged on borrowers receiving loan forgiveness.
The Biden administration announced this week that it approved more than 16 million people for its contested loan relief plan. The Education Department ceased accepting new applicants after a Texas judge blocked the relief plan in a separate ruling.
The plan is facing lawsuits at the high court from six Republican-led states who sued and two individuals who argue it is unlawful.
While the administration has argued that the plaintiffs suing against the plan are basing their arguments on “highly speculative” legal standing, or the ability to bring the suits, some legal experts have cautioned that the Supreme Court has the ability to unravel the plan if it so desires.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“The Supreme Court has not always been a model of consistency when it comes to application of the [standing] doctrine,” said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, during a virtual conference hosted by We The 45 Million, a debt cancellation advocacy group, in January.
The Biden administration has said if the relief plan does not get cleared by the high court and if the litigation is not completed by June 30, payments for loans will resume 60 days after that point.
