The Supreme Court heard argument today on two challenges to the edict. The first session covered Biden v. Nebraska, which is the more direct of the two challenges because state entities are claiming losses from their roles as holders and servicers of loans, whereas the second set of challengers, in Department of Education v. Brown, are people left out of the program who claim that they were injured by the failure to follow proper administrative procedures.

The initial signs are ominous for the Biden Administration, whose only real chance of surviving these cases is to persuade the Court that none of these challengers have standing to sue. …

Missouri’s argument found a receptive audience with Chief Justice John Roberts, whose vote would be essential if Biden wants to win this case. Roberts began the argument by citing an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, quipping that the statutory term “modify” can’t be read so broadly that one would say that the French Revolution modified the status of aristocrats sent to the guillotine. This case clearly irks Roberts and his sense that the “major questions” doctrine prevents presidents from ruling by executive edict and skipping procedural steps. He noted how this reminded him of the Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which stopped the Trump administration from undoing an Obama-era unilateral executive edict. The fact that Biden was spending half a trillion dollars without asking Congress plainly alarms Roberts.

[It’s good to see that the Article I issue at least came up today. I’m still worried about standing, although Dan seems to think that only Amy Coney Barrett was amenable to that issue among the conservative justices. — Ed]