It’s Time For Congress To File A Lawsuit Against President Biden Over Student Debt

It’s Time For Congress To File A Lawsuit Against President Biden Over Student Debt

By Mike Shedlock

Does Congress have standing to file suit over student debt discharges? I think there is an easy way to prove the case one way or the other.

First, let’s recap how we got here and why this is a big issue. 

On August 24, President Biden’s Fact Sheet announced a student debt forgiveness plan that will cost in the neighborhood of $420 billion.

That is fiscal authority the President just does not have. 

Biden’s plan went unchallenged for weeks, presumably because no one had the standing to sue.

The plan must adversely impact someone who claims to have been injured. Taxpayers do not count.

Three Standing Requirements

  • First, there must be a concrete injury in fact that is not conjectural or hypothetical.
  • Second, there must be causation, a fairly traceable connection between a plaintiff’s injury and the conduct of the defendant.
  • Third, there must be redressability, a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury.

The struggle to find standing hinged on finding someone who was monetarily damaged by Biden’s free money handout other than taxpayers.  

Enter Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor who both have student loans. They claim to have been harmed because they were ineligible to obtain the full benefit of debt forgiveness under the Program flows due to the program’s eligibility requirements.

That argument seems more than a bit of a stretch, but on November 11, District Judge Mark T. Pittman made  a Student Debt Cancellation Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone. Instead, we are ruled by a Constitution that provides for three distinct and independent branches of government. As President James Madison warned, “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

THE FEDERALIST NO. 47. The Court is not blind to the current political division in our country. But it is fundamental to the survival of our Republic that the separation of powers as outlined in our Constitution be preserved. And having interpreted the HEROES Act, the Court holds that it does not provide “clear congressional authorization” for the Program proposed by the Secretary.

Correct Conclusion

Pittman’s bottom line conclusion is undoubtedly correct. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Biden did not have the power to do cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of debt.

Biden’s rationale was more than a bit flimsy. Despite having stated the pandemic was over, the alleged decision was under the Heroes Act dealing with the Covid pandemic.

Biden did not care. Of course, once he made the move Pelosi backed Biden.

But What About Standing?

Correct conclusion aside, it is questionable if the Supreme Court would agree with Pittman’s ruling regarding standing, no matter how logical his conclusion.

Moreover, Pittman’s ruling did not end President Biden’s shenanigans.

With his $420 billion cancellation in the legal dock, The Wall Street Journal noted Biden’s Eternal Emergency.

“It isn’t fair to ask tens of millions of borrowers who are eligible for relief to resume their student debt payments while the courts consider the lawsuit,” President Biden said.

So, with the stroke of another unconstitutional announcement, the Education Department extended its pandemic payment pause through next August.

A Better Challenge

There is a far better way forward than running though a torturous maze seeking monetary standing.

I suggest Congress has standing, individually and collectively.

How so? 

Although no member of Congress was monetarily harmed by Biden’s action, they were harmed by a President usurping their constitutional rights.

The constitution, as Pittman chastised, is “not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone.”

Logically, this line of thought applies to every state. Voters elected representatives to make fiscal decisions for their states and Biden took that power away.

This is a real, provable loss, with an easy remedy.

On those grounds, I suggest a lawsuit in every district court in the country.

Even if there is precedent against Congressional filings of this nature, Roe v Wade and Dobbs shows the Supreme Court is not adverse to acting against precedent.

Eventually, and perhaps quickly, the case will get to the Supreme Court where the logical ruling would be against Biden, hopefully with a strong admonishment. 

Let’s return fiscal matters to Congress where they constitutionally belong. 


(TLB) published this article by Mike Shedlock via with our appreciation for this perspective

Header featured image (edited) credit:  Biden/illustration/orginal MishTalk article

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.