Well, they should have a decision by the end of June (although as I recall Collins took until July). They will hear oral arguments and then make a decision.
Given the immediacy of the student loan forgiveness program on tens of millions of Americans, the Supremes will weigh in.
Even Nancy Pelosi said that the POTUS can't control the power of the purse (just like djt couldn't appropriate Billions for a wall he wanted).
THERE'S LIMITS ON THE POWER OF THE POTUS AND THE POWER OF THE PURSE BELONGS TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, NOT THE POTUS.
Here's an interesting commentary in yesterdays Washington Post (btw, todays acceptance of the USSCT of the 5th Circuit's Pittman decision throws the Major Questions Doctrine into the mix):
The Supreme Court's student loan case tests a president's powers
The six states challenging the administration's effort say relying on the pandemic "is a pretext to mask the President's true goal of fulfilling his campaign promise to erase student-loan debt." The law's purpose, they argue, "is to keep certain borrowers from falling into a worse position financially in relation to their student loans. Yet the Secretary uses it here to place tens of millions of borrowers in a better position by cancelling their loans en masse. The Act does not allow the Secretary to effectively transform federal student loans into grants."
Notably, among those who once agreed is Pelosi. "People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness," she said in 2021. "He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."
Maybe that's right; maybe it's wrong. Certainly, there's a distinction between redirecting funds that Congress has already appropriated, as Trump did in the case of the wall, and implementing a policy change that, because of the large sums involved in the student loan program, has enormous financial consequences.
Still, this presents an important question about administrations of both parties and their increasing reliance on emergency authorities to sidestep Congress and implement policy changes. Liberals who warned about autocratic tendencies when Trump invoked such powers ought to be just as concerned now, even if the policy is more to their liking.
Which gets to the even thornier issue in the case: Who, if anyone, has standing to challenge the White House action? Federal courts aren't supposed to issue advisory opinions; the Constitution gives them the authority to decide "cases" or "controversies." What this means is that a party bringing a case must show a "concrete" injury caused by the challenged action.
The paradox of the loan forgiveness case is that while many individuals benefit from the program and while its costs are enormous, it is difficult for any plaintiff to show the kind of particularized injury required to sue. The courts have limited the ability of individual taxpayers or even lawmakers to bring such cases. That more or less leaves states, which the Supreme Court has said are "entitled to special solicitude" in deciding whether they have standing.
In this case, the states argue that, among other things, Missouri has standing because a state-created nonprofit, Mohela, services loans from borrowers in all 50 states. Mohela, the states argue, stands to lose money as a result of the loan forgiveness program, which would harm Missouri directly by depriving it of revenue that Mohela is supposed to pay into a fund to support public colleges in the state.
This potential harm, the Biden administration contends in response, is too tangential and speculative to confer standing, despite a ruling by the federal appeals court letting the states proceed. "If the Eighth Circuit's contrary theory were taken to its logical conclusion," Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the court, "banks could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their borrowers, credit-card companies could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their customers, and governments could sue anyone who causes financial harm to taxpayers."
That seems right as a question of law - and standing isn't an issue on which the administration or a court can choose to look the other way. It has to be present for the case to proceed. But this hurdle is problematic as a matter of policy.
How can it be that a president has unreviewable power to effectively spend $400 billion - and maybe more - without the legality of his action being subject to challenge? Maybe the administration is correct about its interpretation of the Heroes Act, but somebody other than the administration ought to be able to make that determination. This is what courts are for, and what the rule of law is about.
The matter of state standing has gotten out of hand in recent years, as states have raced to courts to challenge administration policies with which they disagree, often manipulating where they file suit to have the case heard by a sympathetic judge.
In a case heard last month by the Supreme Court, Texas challenged the Biden administration's enforcement priorities about which undocumented immigrants to deport. Its injury, Texas claimed, was that a greater number of undocumented immigrants in the state would cause it to incur greater costs.
As Prelogar told the justices in that case, "That theory has no limiting principle. ... Federal courts should not now be transformed into open forums for each and every policy dispute between the states and the national government."
That's true, but it is also unsatisfying, especially in a case such as the loan forgiveness program, in which the impact on the federal treasury is so large and the authority so untested.
Claiming unreviewable executive authority to act in emergency situations is a dangerous impulse - no matter the president; no matter the party; no matter, even, how wise or well-intended the policy.
