meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch

Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness at the Supreme Court

WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch

The Wall Street Journal

News, Society & Culture

4.22.8K Ratings

🗓️ 28 February 2023

⏱️ 22 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The Justices take up Joe Biden's plan to wipe out billions of dollars in student debt, with sparring on the "major questions doctrine" and whether the opponents have legal standing to sue. Meantime, the Commerce Department puts a child care mandate on semiconductor companies that receive federal funding from the Chips Act. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

To gain visibility and control over your financials, inventory, HR, e-commerce, and more,

0:05.0

take advantage of the special financing offer of no payments or interest for six months from NetSuite by Oracle.

0:11.0

Go to NetSuite.com slash Wall Street. That's NetSuite.com slash Wall Street.

0:19.0

From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

0:25.0

The Supreme Court here is arguments on President Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan.

0:30.0

Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal.

0:33.0

We are joined today by my colleagues, columnists Alicia Finley and Kim Strassel. Welcome to both.

0:39.0

When President Biden announced last summer his plan to forgive $10,000 per person in student loans for people earning up to $125,000 a year,

0:50.0

one of the big questions was whether any opposed party would have legal standing to challenge it.

0:56.0

And yet here we are Tuesday, the Supreme Court has just heard oral arguments in a case that could strike down the debt forgiveness program.

1:04.0

And let's start with that standing question. I thought this was an interesting back and forth between Justice Samuel Alito and the lawyer representing the federal government,

1:14.0

Solister General Elizabeth Prelegar.

1:16.0

I understand a big thrust of your argument to be that Missouri lack standing because Mojila is separately incorporated.

1:25.0

But why should that formal distinction govern the determination of injury in fact?

1:32.0

So we think that the injury in fact analysis here has both a factual and a legal component.

1:38.0

In the first place, of course, we're making arguments that even if there's a financial injury to Mojila, the state hasn't carried its burden to show that that will have downstream effects on the state or that those would be cognizable.

1:49.0

And Mojila hasn't paid money into the relevant state fund for the past 15 years.

1:53.0

It said that further payments were not deemed probable even before this plan was announced.

1:58.0

But even putting the factual discrepancies to the side, there's a fundamental problem as a matter of law with the claim of injury.

2:04.0

And I think it arises directly from two sets of black-letter law principles.

2:08.0

The first is that the whole point of incorporation is that you're creating a separate legal person with its own rights and interests.

2:14.0

And Missouri has derived substantial benefits from structuring Mojila that way.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Wall Street Journal, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Wall Street Journal and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.