JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a court order he secured at the lower court level, effectively blocking the Biden-Harris Administration's latest attempt at student loan cancellation.
The ruling was unanimous, with no dissent from any of the justices.
"The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is denied," the Aug. 28 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court states. "The Court expects that the Court of Appeals will render its decision with appropriate dispatch."
Bailey said in a statement that this marks the second time the U.S. Supreme Court has supported his office in challenging the Biden-Harris Administration’s illegal student loan cancellation schemes
"This court order is a stark reminder to the Biden-Harris Administration that Congress did not grant them the authority to saddle working Americans with $500 billion in someone else’s Ivy League debt," Bailey said in a provided statement. "This is a huge win for every American who still believes in paying their own way."
The Eighth Circuit Court reinforced the Eastern District of Missouri’s original preliminary injunction, further enjoining the federal government from forgiving any principal or interest on loans governed by certain federal programs.
The injunction will remain in effect until further orders from the Eighth Circuit or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision to leave this injunction in place strengthens the ruling.
He noted that the ruling was a clear message to the administration that Congress did not grant them the authority to impose $500 billion in student debt on American taxpayers.
Bailey hailed the decision as a victory for those who believe in personal financial responsibility.
In 2023, the Supreme Court had already ruled in favor of Bailey’s first challenge to a similar student loan cancellation effort by the Biden Administration, declaring the plan unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.
The court held that the administration lacked the authority to enact a policy with such a significant financial impact without Congressional approval.
Bailey was joined by attorneys general from Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma in this latest legal challenge.
The states had argued that the president was once again overstepping his authority by attempting to implement an expensive and controversial policy without the consent of Congress, continuing a troubling pattern of sidestepping constitutional limits.
Earlier in August, Judges Raymond Gruender, Ralph Erickson and Steven Grasz issued the ruling that the Supreme Court left in place.
"The Government is, for any borrower whose loans are governed in whole or in part by the terms of the Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 43820, enjoined from any further forgiveness of principal or interest, from not charging borrowers accrued interest, and from further implementing SAVE’s payment-threshold provisions," the judges wrote in the Aug. 9 ruling. "This injunction will remain in effect until further order of this court or the Supreme Court of the United States. The administrative stay is hereby superseded."
U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 24A173