The Supreme Court retained its hold on the Biden administration’s most recent version of the Saving on a Valuable Education program on Wednesday, according to AP News.
The plan would have reduced payments for millions of students across the country and was pieced together after the Court rejected the administration’s first proposal that would have canceled more than $400 billion in student loans last year.
According to the Federal Student Aid website, the administration intended to implement a “three-part plan to help working and middle-class federal student loan borrowers transition back to regular payment as pandemic-related support expires.”
The plan capped the monthly income-based repayment from 10% to 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income. Those under 225% of the poverty line would not have to make payments, per AP News.
Lauren Ravury, junior in LAS, questioned the Supreme Court’s decision after a summer of exposure to hands-on politics while working for Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, D-I.L.
Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!
“I am definitely questioning the justices’ decision,” Ravury said. “I do think it’s a step in the wrong direction because it’s taking back a plan that really could have helped people who need to repay their loans.”
Biden issued SAVE in July 2023 in response to the Supreme Court ruling that the Biden administration did not have the authority to implement the loan forgiveness program.
Challenging states argue the SAVE plan would require spending up to $475 billion over 10 years. Contrarily, the Department of Education estimated a total cost of $156 billion over that same period.
There are currently 7.5 million borrowers enrolled in the administration’s SAVE plan, protecting borrowers from “runaway interest and balances larger than what they originally took out,” according to a state-by-state breakdown released by the ED in February 2024. With the Supreme Court’s rebuttal, those enrolled are left uncertain.
However, Becca Stone, sophomore in LAS, said she feels the SAVE plan is only a temporary remedy to a larger issue.
“I think that it was a band-aid on a bigger issue,” Stone said. “I feel like if we are taking (billions), it has to solve the issue at hand, which is that college tuition is just not affordable, especially for the people who this was supposed to help.”
Stone pointed out that students who are hoping to or are currently enrolled in college still have to take on debt.
“It definitely would help low-income students who were looking to further their education, but if they couldn’t afford college already, having student loan forgiveness is taking care of an issue after it already happened,” Stone said. “People already owe the money.”
Stone, who worked as an intern coordinator for the Lake County Democrats this summer, noted during monthly programs where constituents discussed concerns with local government officials, student loans were a topic of interest among voters.
Speaking on the Court’s decision, Stone said she was not surprised as she thinks the court has become more conservative after former President Donald Trump’s term. Between 2016 to 2020, Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Depending on the speed of the appeals court’s ruling, the case could be appealed once more to the Supreme Court in the fall, reinviting the issue of student loan debt to the presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump.
