My feeling is that if anybody is granted standing in this case, it will be slapped down right quick. This plaintiff is arguing on illegal seizure grounds that cancelling student debt will inevitably lead to a tax debt this person doesn't want.
Which is a strange position but apparently there are all sorts of legal precedents for this.
The Volokh Conspiracy took a look and found a lot to like to this legal strategy but then later followed up with this footnote:
UPDATE 3: Since I wrote the above post, the White House has said there will be an opt out from loan forgiveness for any otherwise eligible borrowers who want it. However, the administration has not actually put forward any opt-out plan for the 8 million , or explained how it will work. When and if the administration puts out an actual opt out plan, we will know more about whether it can defeat standing in this case, or not.
The counter-proposition here seems to be that "hey, if you don't want that tax liability, don't cancel your debt."
I'm not a lawyer. I just find this intriguing.
Extra - This guy is a laywer: "Biden’s $420B student loan boondoggle is blatantly illegal — but progressives don’t care."
3 comments:
https://twitter.com/TitoPuraw/status/1575265551055835136/photo/1
DOJ notifies the district court that the PLF attorney who's suing over student debt relief can opt out: "The Department has already taken steps to effectuate Plaintiff’s clearly stated desire to opt out of the program."
Shorter version: Bye bye, standing.
New York Times Pitchbot on Twitter:
Opinion | Student loan forgiveness was a grotesque neo-Communist giveaway. Here’s why the government should bail out Florida homeowners.
Post a Comment