THERE ARE LIMITS TO PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.

Inside Higher Education contributor Katherine Knott finds out.  "Two federal judges on Monday dealt different blows to the administration’s generous income-driven loan repayment plan. What does that mean for borrowers awaiting relief?" No, seriously, this is, after all, the house organ for business as usual in higher ed.  How else can the advocacy for all wokeness, all the time, go on if the supply of culture-studies majors dries up?

After forgiving $5.5 billion in student loans for 414,000 borrowers, the Biden administration won’t be able to wipe out the balances for any additional borrowers under its new income-driven repayment plan.

More than eight million borrowers are enrolled in the plan known as a Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, which is designed to make payments more affordable and offer a quicker pathway to forgiveness for borrowers, depending how much they initially took out in loans to pay for their education.

Federal judges in Missouri and Kansas handed down orders Monday evening dealing dual setbacks to SAVE, which has become a centerpiece of the president’s efforts to overhaul the student loan system. The Missouri judge blocked the administration from doling out any additional debt relief under SAVE, while the Kansas judge’s order prevents the department from implementing the other parts of the program set to take effect July 1.

An unconstitutional ukase issued under a twee acronym is still an unconstitutional ukase, all the happy talk about "quicker pathway to forgiveness" notwithstanding.  Moreover, that Our President is issuing unconstitutional ukases points out another failing, namely that Congress did not write a "The Secretary shall issue regulations" clause into some reward to rent seekers, which would have made the vote buying a lot easier.

In a nutshell, both judges found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuits because the department lacked the authority to make such significant changes to the income-driven repayment plan. The injunctions are temporary and maintain the status quo while the courts consider the lawsuits.  (Note: This paragraph has been updated to more accurately describe the rulings.)

Neither order rolls back the relief already provided. But undergraduate borrowers won’t see their monthly payments cut in half unless the Kansas court order is reversed on appeal. Borrowers who are not a part of SAVE won’t be affected, as the lawsuits only challenged that plan.

That's alright, the rest of Dementia Joe's unconstitutional vote-buying scheme is in legal limbo, and if he attempts to demagogue it during the campaign, he's likely to further antagonize likely Trump voters who either paid off their student loans or didn't go to college in the first place.

You might find that part of the electoral calculus at Inside Higher Ed, but you'll have to keep scrolling.

“This plan is the most generous repayment program ever, and today we’re doing it even faster and quicker than ever before,” Biden said in February, taking credit for fixing the income-driven repayment plan and making it the “most affordable repayment plan ever.” But following the Monday’s rulings, it’s unclear if that will remain the case.

The rulings come nearly a year after the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s ambitious effort to forgive up to $20,000 in loans for more than 40 million Americans. The administration finalized SAVE last summer after the court’s decision and shortly before payments restarted following a three-year pause due to the pandemic. While the broad-based plan would’ve provided one-time relief, SAVE was intended to provide more permanent assistance to borrowers.

The Biden administration confidently said last summer that its authority to carry out SAVE was “crystal clear” and that it didn’t expect legal challenges.

Oops.  And District Judge Daniel Crabtree, who heard the Kansas case, made it clear that the Federal Constitution is still the controlling legal authority.

“The court emphasizes one more thing about its decision,” Crabtree wrote. “This order does not decide whether student loan forgiveness is good policy or bad policy. The popularly elected branches of our government—the President and the Congress—properly control that decision. Thus, no one should read this order to take a position on that question because our Constitution doesn’t assign any part of it to the federal courts.”

There's a similar reminder that separation of powers exists in the Missouri ruling.

Ultimately, U.S. District John Ross from the Eastern District of Missouri found that only the provisions of SAVE allowing for faster loan forgiveness exceeded the department’s authority. The Education Department has “significant” and “clear congressional authority” to issue the “vast majority of the provisions of the final rule.” The Missouri injunction is nationwide and takes effect immediately.

The political economy of what the Jarrett regency calls "debt forgiveness" and what Militant Normals see as vote buying ultimately involves that limitation on presidential powersultimately involves that limitation on presidential powers.

With both lawsuits, more than a dozen states have sued Biden, the Department of Education, and its leader over this student-debt issue. Kansas was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah in its litigation. In Missouri’s lawsuit, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma were listed as additional plaintiffs.

So far, since Biden took office, 4.75 million borrowers have had $167 billion in student debt canceled, with the bill transferred to taxpayers.

Neither the National Review report nor the Inside Higher Ed report take stock of how much of that "cancelled" debt is still a contingent liability for students who took it out, and who knows what sort of equitable relief there will be either for debtors, if the whole portfolio of ukases is held unconstitutional, or for taxpayers, if some portion of that debt forgiveness gets added to the national debt.