On June 24, 2024, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that the Eastern District of Missouri granted his motion to block President Joe Biden’s latest student loan cancellation plan. The lawsuit targeted the federal government’s “SAVE” Plan, which was projected to cost Americans $475 billion—$45 billion more than a previous student loan plan deemed unlawful. The court’s order prevents the plan from taking effect on July 1.
“During my time in the United States Army, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. I took a similar oath to uphold the Constitution when I was sworn in as Attorney General,” said Bailey. “By attempting to saddle working Missourians with Ivy League debt, Joe Biden is undermining our constitutional structure. Only Congress has the power of the purse, not the President. Today’s ruling was a huge win for the rule of law and for every American who Joe Biden was about to force to pay off someone else’s debt.”
Previously, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bailey’s challenge to another Biden Administration student loan plan. In a 6-3 decision, the Court declared that plan unconstitutional due to its $430 billion-plus impact on the federal budget without Congressional approval. The Court also held that Missouri’s student loan servicing company, MOHELA, was an arm of Missouri’s state government, granting states standing to challenge such plans.
Joining Bailey in filing suit were attorneys general from Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.
The states argued: “Just last year, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the President to force teachers, truckers, and farmers to pay for the student loan debt of other Americans—to the enormous tune of $430 billion. In striking down that attempt, the Court declared that the President cannot ‘unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.’ Undeterred, the President is at it again, even bragging that ‘the Supreme Court blocked it. They blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.’”
They further noted: “Yet again, the President is unilaterally trying to impose an extraordinarily expensive and controversial policy that he could not get through Congress. This latest attempt to sidestep the Constitution is only the most recent instance in a long but troubling pattern of relying on innocuous language from decades-old statutes to impose drastic, costly policy changes on Americans without their consent.”
The court’s order can be read here.
