Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that the Eastern District of Missouri granted his motion to block Joe Biden’s latest student loan cancellation scheme. The lawsuit targeted the federal government’s “SAVE” Plan, which would have cost Americans $475 billion—$45 billion more than the previous plan. The court order prevents the student loan cancellation scheme from taking effect on July 1.
“During my time in the United States Army, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. I took a similar oath to uphold the Constitution when I was sworn in as Attorney General,” said Bailey. “By attempting to saddle working Missourians with Ivy League debt, Joe Biden is undermining our constitutional structure. Only Congress has the power of the purse, not the President. Today’s ruling was a huge win for the rule of law, and for every American who Joe Biden was about to force to pay off someone else’s debt.”
The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bailey’s previous challenge to the Biden Administration’s unilateral student loan debt cancellation. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down Biden’s repayment plan as unconstitutional, citing the $430 billion-plus impact on the federal budget without express authority from Congress. The Court held that Missouri’s student loan servicing company, MOHELA, was an arm of Missouri’s state government, granting the states standing to challenge the plan.
Joining Bailey in filing the suit were the attorneys general of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.
The states asserted, “Just last year, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the President to force teachers, truckers, and farmers to pay for the student loan debt of other Americans—to the enormous tune of $430 billion. In striking down that attempt, the Court declared that the President cannot ‘unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.’ Undeterred, the President is at it again, even bragging that ‘the Supreme Court blocked it. They blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.’”
The states noted, “Yet again, the President is unilaterally trying to impose an extraordinarily expensive and controversial policy that he could not get through Congress. This latest attempt to sidestep the Constitution is only the most recent instance in a long but troubling pattern of the President relying on innocuous language from decades-old statutes to impose drastic, costly policy changes on the American people without their consent.”
The Court’s order can be read here.
