Posted on 09/28/2022 7:52:45 AM PDT by george76
Pacific Legal Foundation filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education to block its illegal move to cancel more than $500 billion in student loan debt.
“Congress did not authorize the executive branch to unilaterally cancel student debt,” said Caleb Kruckenberg, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “It’s flagrantly illegal for the executive branch to create a $500 billion program by press release, and without statutory authority or even the basic notice and comment procedure for new regulations.”
In August 2022, President Biden announced his plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt per person for more than 40 million Americans. The Department of Education’s justification relies on an inapplicable, 20-year-old law: The HEROES Act, which was intended as aid to veterans and their families, allows government to modify student loans during times of war or national emergency.
Whatever the motives of the president for transferring massive amounts of student debt to taxpayers in a rushed, haphazard manner, it certainly seems like an election year ploy. That is one of the predictable effects of the president usurping Congress’ power to make law. Not since President Trump imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium before the 2020 elections has a president abused his power so profoundly.
“Cancelling student debt is unjust to those who have paid their loans or never took any. It will only lead to more calls for government intervention in education at taxpayers’ expense,” said Steve Simpson, senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “Loan cancellation will make Americans more divided, as those who paid their loans—or never went to college—will have good reason to think that we no longer have a government of, by, and for the people.”
Plaintiff Frank Garrison is a public interest attorney — now at Pacific Legal Foundation — who believes the rule of law and separation of powers are bulwarks for liberty and against centralized government power. As a part of an existing, congressionally authorized Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, he will receive debt forgiveness after making 10 years of payments on his loans. The challenged program will stick him with a new state tax bill which he would not have under his existing PSLF program.
For decades, Pacific Legal Foundation has fought for the constitutional separation of powers, the main structural protections against abuses of power that undermine freedom. PLF has won five separation of powers cases at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case is Garrison v. U.S. Department of Education, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. PLF has filed a temporary restraining order to prevent the loan cancellation from going into effect.
Does the PLF have legal standing to file this suit?
Biden does whatever his puppet masters want, regardless of law or the Constitution. Nobody is stopping this, so they go merrily on. Congress is neutered, irrelevant. Has anyone seen Mitch McConnell in the past few months?? We live in a virtual dictatorship now. Heaven help us!
The plaintiff seems to have standing.
PLF is the law firm, just so you see the difference.
L
The lawsuit’s plaintiff is Frank Garrison, who is also an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation... Garrison borrowed federal student loans to pay for law school, but according to him, Biden’s debt forgiveness plan will actually subject him to a financial penalty in the form of a state tax. This gives him standing to sue the U.S. Education Department..
https://reason.com/2022/09/27/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-lawsuit-pacific-legal-foundation/
It seems to me that any American would have standing to challenge this farce.
No. The Supreme Court long ago decided that merely being a taxpayer -- much less "any American" -- does not give standing to challenge laws. Otherwise, "any American" can sue to overturn any law at any time.
But George76 answered the question. Someone who actually took out student loans is directly affected by this law, rather than affected in a general sense.
Anybody who pays taxes has standing here.
If you are a tax PAYER and your tax money is being spent to buy votes, I would think you have ample standing.
If you are looking for a place to donate, PLF is an excellent choice.
They are on the bleeding edge of constitutional lawfare.
HAHAHA...you misuoating SCOTUS. Do you work for Soros?
Scotus explicitly said tax payer has no standing to challenge an exiting law.
Now get your brain in higher gear. Ther is NO LAW PASSED to forgive student debt. Congress has passed no such bill and signed into law by POTUS. This is strinctly done by Biden with Executive Order.
No.
Standing Requirement: Taxpayer Standing
Save for a narrow exception, standing is also lacking when a litigant attempts to sue to contest governmental action that he claims injures him as a taxpayer. In Frothingham v. Mellon ... Noting that a federal taxpayer's “interest in the moneys of the Treasury . . . is comparatively minute and indeterminate” and that “the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the funds . . . [is] remote, fluctuating and uncertain,” the Court ruled that plaintiff had failed to allege the type of “direct injury” necessary to confer standing.
Taxpayers were found to have standing, however, in Flast v. Cohen, to contest the expenditure of federal moneys to assist religious-affiliated organizations. ... Since Flast, the Court has refused to expand taxpayer standing.
See my post 12.
“standing is also lacking when a litigant attempts to sue to contest governmental action that he claims injures him as a taxpayer”
That’s a rejection of standing for general suits against the government spending our tax dollars, but in this case, we have Joe Biden, who isn’t a member of Congress, who didn’t take a vote from Congress, and therefore has no authority to spend tax money, spending the money. So it’s quite a different situation from the one that resulted in the ruling you are citing.
This should be a piece of cake. The Congress spends money not the president.
Even if a law (or executive order, or a bureaucratic regulation) is Unconstitutional, that does not mean that any Tom, Dick or Harry Taxpayer has standing to challenge it.
The PLF understands this.
Does that include stopping also senators / reps. benefitting from the cancelation?
Again, try to get your brain in higher gear.
That case you noted in your post is regarding issues with EXISTING LAW.
There is NO EXISTING LAW regarding student loan forgiveness.
Any executive action by president can be disputed in court if it affects you directly.
What has happened to IQ level of some FR posters?
You should not insult other Freepers, especially when it’s clear you are the one who is mistaken. As another poster said, you are confusing the issue of standing with the merits of the case. They are independent. Also, “government action” does not necessarily mean an act of Congress. It could be any government action, such as Biden’s unilateral action in cancelling student loans.
Yes, on the face every taxpayer would have standing but standing is the loophole the courts use to duck tough cases. Remember the SC said Trump lacked standing when he wanted to challenge the vote counts. Ridiculous, no one had more standing. The truth is every citizen had standing to fight a stolen Presidential election as evidenced by the misery we are suffering because of that theft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.