BREAKING: Supreme Court Issues Decision On Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded its summer session by issuing its ruling in Biden v. Nebraska which will determine the future of President Biden's attempt to cancel over $430 billion in student loan debt via the Department of Education. The Court concluded that Biden's attempt to usurp Congress's power of the purse via unilateral executive action was unconstitutional.

President Biden attempted to use the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), a piece of legislation meant to help the families who were victims of the 9/11 attacks, to forgive the hundreds of billions in loans. The act gives the Department of Education the right to waive student financial assistance during "war or national emergencies," according to Reuters. The national emergency used by the Biden administration to justify such an action was the coronavirus pandemic.

The case in question was brought by six states - Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina - as well as two borrowers.

The decision was divided along ideological lines with the six conservative justices voting against the Biden administration and the three liberals voting in favor.

The Court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, concludes that Biden cannot unilaterally forgive student loan debt with the Court writing, "It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary."

"Today, we have concluded that an instrumentality created by Missouri, governed by Missouri, and answerable to Missouri is indeed part of Missouri; that the words 'waive or modify' do not mean 'completely rewrite'; and that our precedent— old and new—requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy," he continued. "We have employed the traditional tools of judicial decisionmaking in doing so. Reasonable minds may disagree with our analysis—in fact, at least three do. See post, p. ___ (KAGAN, J., dissenting)."

"We do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement," the Chief Justice explained. "It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country. The judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Government’s application to vacate the Eighth Circuit’s injunction is denied as moot."

You can read the full opinion here.

This is a developing story and will be updated accordingly.

You Can Follow Sterling on Twitter Here