The fate of President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt is at stake as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Tuesday in two lawsuits challenging the program.

In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs argue that the Biden administration overstepped its authority because it bypassed Congress and that it failed to follow the proper procedures for establishing the rule. One lawsuit was filed by six Republican-led states, the other by two student loan borrowers in Texas — one who is ineligible for forgiveness entirely and one who is ineligible for the full $20,000.

Biden announced his plan in August to eliminate $10,000 in federal student debt forgiveness to those with incomes of less than $125,000, or households earning less than $250,000. Pell Grant recipients, who come from low-income families, would be eligible for an additional $10,000 in relief.

The plan could affect around 43 million Americans and entirely clear the balances of about 20 million. The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades.

“Canceling hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans—through a decree that extends to nearly all borrowers—is a breathtaking assertion of power and a matter of great economic and political significance,” the six Republican-led states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina —  said in their legal brief.

The Biden administration, however, says it is well within its rights to implement the program based on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, commonly known as the HEROES Act. The law allows the education secretary to modify or waive loan provisions during a national emergency — in this case the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Indeed, the entire purpose of the HEROES Act is to authorize the Secretary to grant student-loan-related relief to at-risk borrowers because of a national emergency  — precisely what the Secretary did here,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is defending the administration’s program, wrote in an application to vacate a lower court’s injunction. 

The Republican-led states have noted that Biden said in a September TV interview that the pandemic is “over,” just as the federal government was implementing the forgiveness program. But Prelogar argued in a court filing that some borrowers will be at “risk of delinquency and default because of the continuing economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

You can think about the pandemic emergency like a fire, said Persis Yu, managing counsel at the Student Borrower Protection Center.

"Just because the fire is not burning, doesn't mean that we don't need to find housing, clothing ... for those people experiencing the emergency," she told Spectrum News. "Maybe the fire's out, but we still need to deal with the economic fallout."

Yu added that the Americans hit hardest by student debt are often the same ones hit hardest by the economic struggles of the pandemic: low-income Americans, women and people of color. She and the Biden administration say that under the HEROES Act, the education secretary has the authority to provide relief as a result.

"The fact that the crisis existed made these borrowers more vulnerable to the economic fallout of the pandemic," Yu said.

The Supreme Court must also weigh whether those filing the lawsuits have the legal standing to do so. The plaintiffs must prove they would be financially harmed by the program.

In the case brought by the six states, a district court ruled they lacked standing. But an appeals court granted their request for an injunction, saying the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a nonprofit entity that services federal loans, might suffer financial losses if the program is allowed to proceed. Prelogar argues that MHELOA is not an arm of the state of Missouri and that the nonprofit chose not to sue on its own.

In the Texas case, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruled the two borrowers, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, have the legal standing to bring their lawsuit. But the Biden administration argues that Brown, who would be ineligible for forgiveness under the Biden plan, would not be worse off financially if it were implemented and that Taylor would actually benefit, receiving $10,000 in debt relief.

Brown and Taylor, whose suit is backed by the conservative advocacy group the Job Creators Network Foundation, argue the Biden administration failed to follow proper procedures by not giving the public an an opportunity to comment before the rule was implemented. Prelogar says the HEROES Act does not expressly require a notice period.

Pittman also ruled that the program was unlawful because it was created with congressional authorization. Prelogar wrote that Pittman weighed in on a claim the plaintiffs never made, presumably, she said, because they recognized they lacked the standing to do so.

“Even if respondents had standing to raise their notice-and-comment claim, they lack standing to raise (or to have the district court raise for them) a claim of substantive unlawfulness,” she wrote in a court filing.

An appeals court upheld Pittman’s order.

Tuesday’s hearings will be the Biden administration’s latest test of a Supreme Court in which conservatives hold a 6-3 advantage. In recent rulings that have not gone the president’s way, the justices lifted a pandemic-era moratorium on rental evictions, tossed out a COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandate for large businesses and restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regular carbon emissions.

Nevertheless, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said last week the administration is confident it will win this time in the Supreme Court. 

“We have to remember what the student loan plan means and why the president put that forward,” she said. “It’s to help tens of millions of American, give them a little breathing room, give them an opportunity as we're coming out of this pandemic — this once-in-a-generation pandemic,” she said. 

“It is unfortunate to us that … Republicans officials across the country are out there trying to stop something, trying to stop a policy that would really help everyday Americans who need just a little bit of assistance,” she added.

The oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Tuesday. A decision is expected before the end of June.