A coalition of states has filed a lawsuit to block the latest iteration of President Joe Biden’s plan to shift repayment of student loans from former students to taxpayers.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is leading the lawsuit, said this year’s plan to forgive student debt violates many of the same principles as Biden’s first attempt to do so, which was shot down last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Fox Business.
“Not since the Civil War has a president told the Supreme Court, ‘Yeah you blocked me, but I’m gonna do it anyway.’” Kobach told Fox News in an interview. “Biden is trying to twist federal law once again, and his new plan is just as illegal as the old plan.”
The Kansas-led lawsuit is supported by Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that his state is also leading a coalition against the loan forgiveness plan, which will include Arkansas and other states, calling the proposal Biden’s “latest illegal student loan plan” in a post on X.
BREAKING: My office will be filing suit against Joe Biden for his latest illegal student loan plan.
The Supreme Court sided with us on this matter the first time. I look forward to bringing home yet another win for the Constitution and the rule of law.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) March 28, 2024
“The Supreme Court could not have been clearer: President Biden cannot unilaterally cancel student debt and force taxpayers to bear the multi-billion-dollar cost,” Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a release posted on Bailey’s website.
Kobach said that former students will have the “entirety of their debt canceled” in a debt relief plan he said was “’twisting the words of federal law,” according to the Daily Mail.
“This time they say, ‘Oh we’re just modifying the terms of debt repayment,’ but that’s not modifying the terms of debt repayment when you take the debt all the way down to zero and you don’t have to pay back the principal,” he said.
Kobach said the plan is shot through with political motivations.
“It may just be coincidence, or it may be that the administration is attempting to curry favor with people who have student debt,” he said.
Between our two coalitions of states, we will get this matter in front of a judge even more quickly to deliver a win for the American people.
->https://t.co/0dITNXr5ou— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) March 28, 2024
Biden proposed his $138 billion student loan plan in February, saying of his student debt forgiveness efforts: “The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn’t stop me,” according to Fox Business.
The premise behind the lawsuit is that Congress needed to approve a major policy change that shifts debt from former students to taxpayers.
“Last time Defendants tried this the Supreme Court said that this action was illegal. Nothing since then has changed,” a copy of the lawsuit posted on Fox Business said.
“This lawsuit is now necessary to prevent Defendants from continuing to flout the law, which includes ignoring Supreme Court decisions,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit said ruling outside the law is a Biden trademark.
“This is not the first time Defendant Biden has taken actions that he publicly admits are likely unlawful. This is an administration that rules by will, not by law,” the lawsuit said.
“Although this round of unilateral debt nullification takes on a new name, with a different putative authority, it is every bit as improper as his first unlawful attempt at debt forgiveness in Biden v. Nebraska,” the lawsuit said, referring to the 2023 case decided by the Supreme Court.
“Indeed, as the Defendants scrape ever deeper into the barrel for legal pretexts to abolish student debts, the illegality of those artifices becomes more obvious. The authority that Defendants claim now lacks any substantive limits and amounts to claiming that they can abolish all student debt at any time by rulemaking alone,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit noted that the plan is political in nature.
“The timing of these actions also makes plain their pretextual nature. The first round of debt relief was rushed out in time for the 2022 elections in a transparent bread-and-circuses attempt to boost base turnout and, in essence, buy votes with federal funds. This second round of debt cancellation also — by remarkable coincidence — manages to take effect shortly before the 2024 election,” the lawsuit said.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
