PROMISES & MISREPRESENTATION
LEGAL ANALYSIS — PRESIDENT BIDEN COLLEGE DEBT RELIEF PLAN
I am perplexed by the legality of political candidates running on campaign promises to remove student debt. It is pertinent to disclose that this discussion is bipartisan and applies concepts out of curiosity.
During President Biden’s campaign in 2020, the student loan forgiveness plan was a major part of a national strategy for getting the economy back on track.
Specifically, As divulged in an online Forbes article, “Joe Biden reiterated his support for campaign pledges concerning college affordability, including, investing in community colleges and HBCUs, doubling Pell Grants, providing access to free education for anyone making under $125,000 for four years of college, and reforming the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program” (Kantrowitz, 2020)
These verbal promises hold great weight for some, and with this knowledge is it reasonable to assume that these verbal promises persuaded voters?
For example, According to the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 86, as shared by Kelly(2010)
1. The promisor received a benefit. (such as a vote),
2. From the promisee (voters)
3. The promisor then made a promise in recognition of that benefit(student relief plan) and
4. Injustice would result unless the promise was enforced. (repayments)
(Kelly,p.85,2010)
Consequently, the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate Biden’s proposed debt forgiveness plan in June could be considered a major economic duress/ detriment to the approximately 26 million borrowers who had applied for relief. As evidenced in a (2023) online TIMES article, “The court held that the Administration lacked the legal authority to cancel the debt under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003.” (Burga, 2023). Henceforth, considering this decision has significant implications, as an exception for consideration under moral obligation, would the courts not consider an injustice to occur for the 26 million borrowers who had applied for up to $20,000 in relief? Explicitly under exception 4 of section 86, as analyzed, injustice is already occurring for some as student debt payments began last month.
Therefore, I wonder, even though the court said the Administration had no authority, should this circumstance under reliance on opinion RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 169 apply?
As divulged by Kelly(2010), “The misled party reasonably believes the other party has special skill, judgment, or objectivity about this subject matter, at least in comparison to the misled party;” (p.167).
With that notion in mind, are there any solutions to the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Thank you for reading,
Kayla Calderwood
References
Burga, S. (2023, October 31). What to Know About Biden’s Newest Student Loan Forgiveness Effort. TIME; Time. https://time.com/6330272/biden-student-loan-forgiveness-higher-education-act/
Kelly, M. B. (2010). Inside Contract Law(pp.85;167). New York: Aspen Publishers.
Kantrowitz, M. (2020, December 15). Joe Biden Reaffirms Student Loan Forgiveness Campaign Promise. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markkantrowitz/2020/11/17/joe-biden-reaffirms-student-loan-forgiveness-campaign-promise/?sh=34139e474a98
