This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Nebraska , 600 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Biden Administration’s student loan forgiveness program. Supreme Court’sDecision By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court agreed with the states that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. In Biden v.
In the Supreme Court’s recent decision Biden v. Nebraska , the Court relied on the MQD to determine that the Biden Administration could not forgive $430 billion of federal student loan debt under a 2003 Act that had not been the basis for such a sweeping program before. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce.
The injunction was granted based on the law’s vagueness, just as in the SIFMA decision, and on the constitutional requirement that plans focus on providing benefits to plan members, not on benefiting industries operating within the state. In the student loan forgiveness case ( Biden v.
There is plenty of commentary making the rounds regarding yesterdays 5-4 Supreme Courtdecision confirming that of course a judge can issue a Temporary Restraining Order to maintain the status quo and require USAID pay out the money that it owes to contractors for work already done. for the Court). First was Biden v.
Nebraska and Department of Education v. If the statute is ambiguous, courts must presume that Congress have not given the agency the power in question. Several courtdecisions ruled against Trump on the merits. Share This article is part of a symposium on the upcoming arguments in Biden v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content