Biden Offers Contradictory Legal Arguments for Student Debt Bailout and Against Title 42

Biden’s administration could have accidentally undermined its own legal argument for removing a Trump-era Immigration measure.

Wednesday will see the administration Renew COVID-19, the public health emergency marking the 11th such act by the government since the pandemic in 2020. This renewal was announced four months ago by President Biden. declared “the pandemic is over.”

This renewal, together with the administration’s claimed justification for its massive student debt forgiveness order, seems to contradict the administration’s case to end Title 42. Title 42 allows border officers to expel migrants and not allow them to apply for asylum, in order to limit the spread COVD-19.

Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security has Warned The administration is pushing to end the health policy, but it has been argued that it is no longer necessary to protect the public’s health.

“The government recognizes that the end of the Title 42 orders will likely lead to disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar Submitted In a Filing Last month to the Supreme Court. “The government in no way seeks to minimize the seriousness of that problem. But the solution to that immigration problem cannot be to extend indefinitely a public-health measure that all now acknowledge has outlived its public-health justification.”

Despite all the efforts of the administration, the Supreme Court ruled last month ordered Despite a legal challenge between the federal government of several states, including Arizona, the measure remains in place.

The Supreme Court is ready to hear Arizona, et al. v Mayorkas Next month 

But the contradictions don’t stop there. Prelogar could find herself in an unusual position next month. The solicitor general, responsible for arguing the federal government’s position before the Supreme Court, will be arguing that COVID-19 is, by turns — depending on the Biden policy being rationalized — an ongoing public health emergency (for purposes of preserving student loan forgiveness) yet also an abated public health threat (for purposes of rescinding Title 42).

Biden announced August will see him cancel $10,000 of federal student loans for borrowers who make less than $125,000 per annum and $20,000 for those who receive them. Pell GrantsThe, which supports tuition for students of lower income.

Biden described this plan as a way of providing families with financial support. “breathing room as they prepare to start re-paying loans after the economic crisis brought on by the pandemic.”

Biden announced his decision and the Justice Department issued a legal document. opinion The secretary of education has stated that “authority to reduce or eliminate the obligation to repay the principal balance of federal student loan debt, including on a class-wide basis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

A statement was also issued by the Education Department’s Office of the General Counsel. Memo Using the same argument.

In what was later called the “Coalition of States” it was challenged by a coalition of states. Nebraska v BidenThey claimed it would reduce their revenue.

In a Supreme Court Filing Prelogar clarified that the Justice Department’s argument in favor of the student loan forgiveness plan was based on a health emergency.

“In March 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,” This document was filed in November states. “That declaration remains in effect, and the government has declared all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories to be disaster areas. COVID-19 has killed more than one million Americans and led to the hospitalization of millions more. COVID-19 continues to kill more than 2,000 Americans a week. The pandemic has also inflicted severe economic harms, including layoffs, spikes in inflation, rising delinquency rates on debt, and projected reductions in lifetime earnings for students who left school during the pandemic.”

The Justice Department Submitted A Supreme Court case that is almost identical Filing last month for Brown v Department of EducationTwo plaintiffs challenged Biden’s plan to forgive student loans by claiming that the administration failed to comply with federal law which requires comment and notice in the implementation of certain regulatory programs.

Like Arizona v MayorkasBoth Brown Nebraska Next month, they will be presented to the Supreme Court. The latter are specifically scheduled for Feb. 28, and it’s possible Title 42 could be considered then as well — which is where Prelogar comes in.

“All the cases could potentially be heard on the same day, putting the solicitor general in an awkward position,” Andrew Arthur, resident fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told Just the News. The court could decide that COVID is so severe that student loans must be forgiven by hundreds of billions of money. However, COVID is such a minor issue that all unscreened and potentially unvaccinated immigrants can come through.

“There’s a glaring inconsistency here. It suggests the administration’s true concern isn’t public health but rather purely political ends.”

Arthur also echoed the same sentiment in an Article The Center for Immigration Studies.

“Nothing really mandates consistency in the administration’s arguments when it comes to the effect of the pandemic,” He wrote. “But if COVID-19 remains such an existential threat that it, in part, mandates $400 billion in federal spending (the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the cost of Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan), wouldn’t that threat logically also require  [the Department of Homeland Security] to close the border to illegal migrants?”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.