Speaker 1: Half a trillion dollars with the stroke of a pen,
Speaker 1: which would obviously be the most expensive executive order ever
Speaker 1: and incredibly unfair and not progressive. So, UM, I would
Speaker 1: like to live in a world where you could just
Speaker 1: declare that stupid and unfair and have it go away.
Speaker 1: But you can't do that. You have to go through
Speaker 1: all the legal reasons for doing it. And so a
Speaker 1: lot of legal experts were saying, yeah, it sounds illegal,
Speaker 1: but who are you gonna find withstanding that can actually sue,
Speaker 1: that can bring that forward. And it looks like we
Speaker 1: have our first case. Yeah. Indeed, the Pacific Legal Foundation
Speaker 1: is taking the lead, and Allison Suman is a legal
Speaker 1: fellow with a Center for the Separation of Powers at
Speaker 1: the Pacific Legal Foundation, here to talk about the lawsuit
Speaker 1: and and the topics that surrounded Allison. How are you
Speaker 1: do it? Well? Thank you, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1: How are you today? We're terrific, We're glad you're here.
Speaker 1: I'm disappointed that you can't just declare something, uh, stupid
Speaker 1: and unfair and it's good enough. So I feel that
Speaker 1: way to having been on various cases like these. UM,
Speaker 1: let me talk a little bit about what's going on here.
Speaker 1: So I think you already alluded to this concept of standing.
Speaker 1: And as you suggested a moment ago, if you have
Speaker 1: a grievance with the government, if you think what they're
Speaker 1: doing is wrong or stupid or offensive, be that as
Speaker 1: it may, that's not enough to get you into court.
Speaker 1: You have to be able to show that you're injured
Speaker 1: in a concrete way, in a tangible way before you
Speaker 1: can get into court and make your case to a judge.
Speaker 1: And who did you find that that fits that description
Speaker 1: for this particular executive order? So this is a little
Speaker 1: bit unusual. One of our very own employees, Frank Garrison,
Speaker 1: who is a lawyer with US. I've worked with him
Speaker 1: before in a different project. He is eligible for loan
Speaker 1: forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. This is
Speaker 1: at a completely separate federal program where if you work
Speaker 1: for a qualifying nonprofit or government organization for or ten years,
Speaker 1: because these organizations tend to do worthwhile work and tend
Speaker 1: not to pay a lot, if you stay in those
Speaker 1: jobs and show the differment of education that you've been
Speaker 1: staying in that job after ten years, they will forgive
Speaker 1: the balance on your loans. Frank works for US or
Speaker 1: a qualified nonprofit. So if he stays with US for
Speaker 1: about another I believe about four years, give her take
Speaker 1: his his remaining debt will be wiped out by the
Speaker 1: government and he would not owe tax on that wiped
Speaker 1: out debt under the law that created those rules. So
Speaker 1: where's his injury though, what's his complain about that? That
Speaker 1: sounds like something he would like. Okay, I'm I'm getting
Speaker 1: to that. I'm sorry. So, because Biden wiped out twenty
Speaker 1: dollars of Frank's debt early before he would qualify for
Speaker 1: that loan forgiveness, he faces attacks um under Indiana state law.
Speaker 1: Under Indiana law, if if someone owes you, if you
Speaker 1: owe someone a debt and then that person wipes out
Speaker 1: your debt, you borrow money for a call are and
Speaker 1: then the other person says, you know what, I don't
Speaker 1: want to cleft up money back from you. That's considered
Speaker 1: part of your income, and so you owe tax on that.
Speaker 1: So Frank, who is expecting no tax bill for having
Speaker 1: his debt wept out later, now all of a sudden
Speaker 1: is getting hit with a tax bill because of the
Speaker 1: buying executive action. And so that, in his view, gives
Speaker 1: him standing to sue and take on this big unconstitutional
Speaker 1: power grap So I have a feeling that I'm asking
Speaker 1: a question that's going to be answered with the basic
Speaker 1: concept of constitutional law that I'm just not familiar with.
Speaker 1: But why not just file suit on behalf of the poor,
Speaker 1: beleaguered taxpayer, part of whose income is going to be
Speaker 1: used to finance this program? So that's a great question. UM.
Speaker 1: Back in the nineties, sixties and seventies, there were cases
Speaker 1: that went up to the Supreme Court on similar theories
Speaker 1: of what was called taxpayer standing. It's interesting for me
Speaker 1: to get this question over the last few days because
Speaker 1: at the time this was mostly seen as a very
Speaker 1: liberal cause. The people who were bringing these taxpayer standing
Speaker 1: suits were environmental activists who are suing the then new
Speaker 1: Environmental Protection Agency to get it to act more aggressively, UM,
Speaker 1: to do to control pollution, what have you. And the
Speaker 1: courts were wary of what a big ep A could
Speaker 1: do to businesses, so they wanted to limit these environmental
Speaker 1: cases to situations in which people were actually concretely harmed
Speaker 1: by supposed environmental degradation. It does have this, These cases
Speaker 1: do have this somewhat unpredictable result though that when a
Speaker 1: president does a big power grab like this, Uh, taxpayers
Speaker 1: or who don't want to be stuck um paying off
Speaker 1: other people's student loans don't have an obvious recourse. Interesting
Speaker 1: And just to be clear, you said that was a
Speaker 1: good question, but then you said everybody has been asking
Speaker 1: it the last several days. It means very way to
Speaker 1: undermine me. Wait, did way you know, take away my
Speaker 1: moment in the sun? So I guess and again I've
Speaker 1: probably gott to enroll in the constitutional law class, which
Speaker 1: I haven't taken the thirty years. But um, so the
Speaker 1: president can do something, to my mind blatantly unconstitutional. I mean,
Speaker 1: stretch that Heroes Act from the early two thousands beyond
Speaker 1: recognition and with the stroke of a pen and act legislation.
Speaker 1: But we've got to find somebody specific who's hurt by it.
Speaker 1: You can't sue in principle, that's correct. So because so
Speaker 1: because Frank has this specific injury, he owes tactics under
Speaker 1: any year of state law. In our view, he qualifies
Speaker 1: to challenge that big power grabbed by the president. So
Speaker 1: what about this latest wrinkle in the last twenty four
Speaker 1: hours where they're trying to get around your particular suit,
Speaker 1: where the Department of Justice has filed notice confirming that quote,
Speaker 1: any borrower who qualifies for automatic debt relief will be
Speaker 1: given an opportunity to opt out, which, according to one
Speaker 1: Blue check Mark Twitter person said, blows up your entire
Speaker 1: standing theory. So our attorneys are aware of that, they're
Speaker 1: looking at it carefully. I believe that they're in court
Speaker 1: this morning and they're addressing the matter with the judge.
Speaker 1: We'll see how we'll see how he how he rules
Speaker 1: on this UM. I would add that I think we
Speaker 1: would like to see something more official from the Departments
Speaker 1: of Education and Justice confirming that this is how this
Speaker 1: will actually work. Because our attorneys looked very carefully at
Speaker 1: all of the materials prepared by the White House by
Speaker 1: Department of Education after Biden first announced this policy. At
Speaker 1: that time, there was no indication of any opt out,
Speaker 1: and so I think before before we move forward, we
Speaker 1: would like to see some kind of more official confirmation
Speaker 1: that there actually is going to be an opt out
Speaker 1: and that this is how this will work. I would
Speaker 1: add that ordinarily, efforts by a defendant to evade a
Speaker 1: judgment and ends them by changing your position abruptly. Are
Speaker 1: not favored in the federal court. Alison Sulman is a
Speaker 1: legal fellow at the Center for the Separation of Powers.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm just thinking creatively here, a physical injury
Speaker 1: would give me standing right. Yes, well, this program chaps
Speaker 1: my ass and is really painful, no amounting. Yeah, boy, howdy.
Speaker 1: I hope that maneuver is is unsuccessful, as you suggest,
Speaker 1: because it's just so frustrating to see the power of
Speaker 1: the executive and the abuse the abuse of that power
Speaker 1: just grow by leaps and bounds with every administration, democratic
Speaker 1: and Republican. We the people, we have to have a defense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you're a lawyer, so this might not seem as
Speaker 1: much this way to you as it does to me.
Speaker 1: But it seems like such a technical, complicated way to
Speaker 1: go about this when it should be more of just
Speaker 1: a we can't have one guy who can spend a
Speaker 1: true half a trillion dollars with one stroke of a pen.
Speaker 1: I agree this is a really big reach by the
Speaker 1: president and that it's really troubling for us a specific
Speaker 1: legal foundation. This isn't really about our having views on
Speaker 1: what should happen with student loan debt, but on the
Speaker 1: idea that under our constitutional order of government, the president
Speaker 1: shouldn't be empowered to make these decisions on his own.
Speaker 1: This is decision that should be made democratically in the
Speaker 1: most democratic branch by Congress. The heroes at which Biden
Speaker 1: has a sort of authority, just doesn't simply support the
Speaker 1: kind of broad loan forgiveness that his White House claims
Speaker 1: it does. Clearly, clearly indeed, Allison soone of the Pacific
Speaker 1: Legal Foundation, a terrific organization, absolutely worthy of everybody's support. Allison,
Speaker 1: great to talk to you. Let's stay in touch on
Speaker 1: this case. All right, thank you so much. It was
Speaker 1: great to be here. Yeah, thank you, our pleasure. Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Jetty