Key Takeaways:
– Sweet v. Cardona settlement controversially forgives $6 billion in student loan debt.
– Some claim this violates the Constitution and infringes on Congress’ power of the purse.
– Settlement criticized for failing to meet basic class certification requirements.
– The Ninth Circuit recently upheld the settlement despite strong opposition.
– Incoming Trump administration urged to challenge and overturn this settlement.
The Controversial Settlement: Sweet v. Cardona
Even as the Biden administration’s tenure draws to an end, a major point of discord persists. It entails the controversial, landmark settlement of Sweet v. Cardona. This agreement, critics argue, illegally absolves billions in student loan debt. Strikingly, the forthcoming Trump administration is urged to immediately rectify this.
The lawsuit against the federal Department of Education began back in 2019 by borrowers. During Trump’s administration, there were efforts to reach a settlement, unfortunately rejected by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2020. However, a fresh negotiation emerged under Biden’s administration, eventually birthed the Sweet v. Cardona settlement in 2022. For the first time ever, this deal doused $6 billion in student loan debt for an estimated 200,000 borrowers.
Claims of Lawlessness and Breaches
Yet, many claim this arrangement lacks legal grounding. Education Secretary under Biden, Miguel Cardona, is accused of eschewing his legal duties for this settlement. Critics argue this action undermines Congress’ fiscal power and infringes the Constitution’s separation of powers safeguards. The district court also faces accusations of distorting its discretion through this settlement approval.
Intriguingly, the settlement’s procedural defects add to its controversy. It reportedly fails to meet the elementary class certification prerequisites by creating three separate subclasses. This violation of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which insists on a unified class. Despite these shortcomings, the district court sanctioned it.
Moreover, multiple objections were cast against this settlement. Specifically, four schools initially permitted to contest the case. However, disregarding these legitimate concerns, the court sanctioned the settlement.
Future Implications
The settlement was momentarily paused due to an appeal launched by the schools in 2023. However, a 2-1 ruling by the Ninth Circuit on November 5, went in favor of the settlement. This ruling disregarded the schools’ objection and created a novel test that ultimately denied them involvement in the case. Despite this ruling, there have been further calls for legal challenges.
Specifically, Judge Daniel Collins disapproved of the settlement, outlining its failures to meet legal grounds and class certification requirements in his dissenting opinion. His dissent also serves as a blueprint for potential future legal confrontations.
The settlement is seen as a dangerous precedent that could impact the separation of powers. Essentially, it’s argued that political goals were achieved by employing flawed settlements rather than following the law. This can potentially flank a wider student debt relief, a significant political objective for the Biden government.
In light of these, the incoming Trump administration is encouraged to quickly challenge and nullify this unconstitutional arrangement. Ideally, the Department of Education during Trump’s presidency should confess this error and work towards a solution. The alleged misuse of settlement authority by the Education Department calls for a thorough investigation by Congress.
##Last Words
It’s crucial for a functional government that every branch respects constitutional boundaries. The Sweet v. Cardona settlement, as argued by critics, clearly violates these limits. This controversial settlement is seen as an affront to the rule of law and a threat to constitutional conservatism, hence should not be allowed to stand. Ultimately, if the Trump administration prioritizes this issue, there could be an end to its existence.