A Republican-appointed federal judge has taken an extraordinary step, preemptively blocking a rule that hasn’t yet been finalized in a move that could halt President Joe Biden’s efforts to provide relief to millions of student borrowers. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge James Randal Hall in Georgia, has sparked outrage among student debt advocates, who accuse conservative judges of thwarting democratic processes to prevent much-needed debt relief.
Judge Hall, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled in favor of a coalition of right-wing state attorneys general who sought to stop the Biden administration’s proposed student debt relief plan. The decision comes as the administration is working on new measures following the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of an earlier debt forgiveness program that would have impacted millions of Americans.
The Biden administration has been working to alleviate the burden of student loans, especially for long-term borrowers who have been repaying loans for decades. Biden’s original plan aimed to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for nearly 40 million borrowers, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023.
The administration then shifted its focus to the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which proposes lowering monthly payments and accelerating forgiveness for borrowers who have been repaying loans for at least 20 years. This effort was set to relieve debt for approximately 30 million people—most of whom are low- to middle-income Americans burdened by student loans.
This ongoing effort, however, has faced persistent challenges from Republican-led states that argue such relief programs overstep the legal authority of the Department of Education.
The lawsuit to block Biden’s student debt relief rule was led by a group of right-wing state attorneys general, spearheaded by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. These states argue that the Department of Education does not have the statutory authority to cancel student loan debt without explicit approval from Congress.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that the relief plan could cost taxpayers between $73 billion and $146.9 billion. The Biden administration has disputed these figures, arguing that targeted debt relief would stimulate the economy and help millions of Americans manage their financial futures.
Bailey, like many conservative critics of Biden’s debt relief proposals, contends that “working Americans shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for someone else’s education.”
What makes Judge Hall’s ruling so controversial is its unprecedented nature. The judge blocked a rule that hasn’t even been finalized. Typically, courts review existing laws and regulations, but Hall’s decision preemptively halts the proposed rule, preventing the Biden administration from delivering the relief millions of borrowers were counting on.
“This is a dangerous and unprecedented step,” said Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center. “Opponents of democracy are terrified that they will lose again at the ballot box in November and are rushing to right-wing judges to hamstring democratic governance.”
Hall justified his decision by citing the “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” for the plaintiffs and argued that the rule lacked statutory authority. He added that U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona’s attempt to implement the rule was “contrary to normal procedures.” Hall’s ruling also referenced other recent court decisions that have blocked similar debt relief programs.
This ruling has left millions of borrowers in limbo, as the Biden administration’s efforts to provide meaningful relief have now been stifled multiple times by conservative courts. Many of the people who would benefit from this relief have been repaying loans for over 20 years, often struggling to manage payments amid rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and growing financial inequality.
Critics argue that the judicial roadblocks to Biden’s debt relief plan are part of a broader right-wing effort to hinder progressive policies through legal challenges and the use of conservative courts.
“This court’s unprecedented decision to block a rule that does not yet exist is not only bad for the 30 million borrowers who were relying on the administration to deliver much-needed relief,” said American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, “It’s a harbinger of the chaos and corruption right-wing judges seek to force on the American people.”
The ruling comes against the backdrop of Project 2025, a conservative agenda aimed at reshaping governance through judicial power. Critics have warned that the right-wing effort is already using courts to dismantle policies that could help working families, including Biden’s student debt relief plan.
The interference of conservative judges like Hall has raised alarm among legal experts, who warn that the judiciary is becoming a tool for political agendas, further eroding the checks and balances of U.S. governance. By blocking relief measures that are popular with voters, opponents of debt relief may be underestimating the public’s support for economic reforms.
Despite this setback, the Biden administration has made it clear that it will continue to fight for student debt relief. White House officials have criticized the ruling and are considering their legal options, including appealing the decision.
“We will not give up on delivering relief to millions of Americans,” said a White House spokesperson. “We are committed to ensuring that student borrowers get the help they need, and we will continue to work to overcome the legal challenges thrown in our path.”
As for the political implications, the fight over student debt relief is likely to remain a key issue in the 2024 election, with Biden framing his efforts as part of a broader commitment to economic fairness, while Republicans continue to oppose such relief measures as overly burdensome to taxpayers.
Mike Pierce summed up: “This is an extraordinary break with precedent and a brazen move by the conservative movement to shift even more power to unelected, unaccountable red-state judges.”
COMMENTS