Instead of trying to get it right, and instead of delivering more relief to more people,

the Biden administration incompetently designed this program with terrible legal arguments,

and then when they were caught with bad assumptions about standing and bad arguments,

instead of fixing them, they denied more relief to more people. We are back with a fresh bad faith.

We have returning to the podcast, Professor Jed Sugarman, who is a professor at Fordham Law School, visiting

professor at BU and soon to be permanent professor at BU Law School. Welcome back to the podcast,

Professor Sugarman. Thank you for having me back. Thank you. It's such a pleasure. And new to the

pod for the first time, Persis You, who is deputy executive director of the student borrower protection center.

One of the foremost experts on today's subject, student debt cancellation.

Welcome to the podcast Persis.

Thank you.

It's great to be here.

All right.

So obviously we're talking today because yesterday we listened to oral arguments on the Supreme Court about

the viability of Joe Biden's student debt cancellation plan. Jed, last time you were on the podcast,

we talked about what we've received to be vulnerabilities in the approach that Joe Biden had

taken, namely the choice to use the Heroes Act as opposed to

the Higher Education Act as the legal authority to hook the executive power under which he is

canceling the student debt and whether or not I was arguing or contemplating whether it was

a political choice, how invested Joe Biden really was in this, and what the likelihood of it actually overcoming challenges that we only anticipated at the time

actually was. And so I want to ask you first, is this playing out as you anticipated? And if not,

how is it departing from what you expected?

...