Biden v. Nebraska
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Biden v. Nebraska and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Biden v. Nebraska.
In Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court addressed whether the Secretary of Education had the authority under the HEROES Act to implement a student loan forgiveness program. The Court found that the Act did not authorize the Secretary to cancel $430 billion in student loan principal. The decision also involved a discussion on Missouri's standing to challenge the program based on its impact on MOHELA.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Biden v. Nebraska.
The Court held that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Biden v. Nebraska. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Biden v. Nebraska
The case primarily concerns the limits of agency authority under the HEROES Act, which is a question of administrative law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to 'waive or modify' existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Biden v. Nebraska
The Court's decision to hear the case involves a significant discussion of standing, particularly whether Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary's program.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Because we conclude that the Secretary's plan harms MOHELA and thereby directly injures Missouri—conferring standing on that State—we need not consider the other theories of standing raised by the States.
-
Why Nondelegation is relevant to Biden v. Nebraska
The Court's analysis involves whether Congress clearly delegated the authority to the Secretary to enact such a sweeping loan forgiveness program.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it. Our recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA involved similar concerns over the exercise of administrative power.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Biden v. Nebraska that support the summary and concepts above.
"The HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary's loan forgiveness program."
"Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary's program."
"The Secretary's plan harms MOHELA in the performance of its public function and so directly harms the State that created and controls MOHELA."
