The Biden administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 2 to put on hold a ruling that struck down its student loan forgiveness plan or expedite review of the case.

A federal judge declared Biden’s loan forgiveness plan illegal on Nov. 10, ruling that only Congress could authorize such sweeping debt relief. The case is one of two that has halted the debt relief program.

The other case, State of Nebraska, et al. v. Joseph Biden Jr., et al., is a lawsuit brought by six conservative states that led to an injunction against the program. On Dec. 1, the Supreme Court agreed to review the legality of the debt relief plan through that case.

The Biden administration’s Dec. 2 request concerns a lawsuit brought by two college graduates who aren’t eligible for the full $20,000 of debt relief possible under the loan forgiveness plan. They said it skirted regulatory processes and arbitrarily left out many borrowers. 

The administration asked the Supreme Court to review the two cases together.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Dec. 1 to review whether the Biden administration’s plan to forgive student debt for millions of borrowers is legal. 

The decision stems from a lawsuit brought by a group of six conservative states who say the plan would harm their finances. They argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 23 that it should uphold a lower court’s decision to block the program while a panel of judges considers the lawsuit. 

They say the Education Department has failed to justify the program’s broad scope. For instance, the agency did not explain why couples who file taxes jointly and earn up to $250,000 will qualify for the loan forgiveness, they argued. 

“Such failures to explain core eligibility requirements — which drive the Cancellation’s broad scope — cannot survive review,” they wrote. 

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 14 blocked the Biden administration from discharging borrowers’ federal student loan debts. The appellate judges ruled that the lower court erred in deciding that the group of states lacked legal standing to challenge the plan. 

Shortly after, the Biden administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, calling the appeals court’s analysis insufficient to support an injunction, “much less a universal injunction prohibiting the government from implementing a critically important policy with direct and tangible effects on millions of Americans.”

A federal judge canceled a hearing in November regarding a lawsuit against Biden’s loan forgiveness plan after a separate court ruled the program was unlawful. Although the judge said in an order that putting a hold on the case could be prudent, the Biden administration argued Nov. 29 that the lawsuit should be dismissed. 

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, sued the Biden administration on Oct. 18, arguing the relief plan could undermine an existing program that allows borrowers to have their debts cleared after a decade of qualifying payments if they become government employees or nonprofit workers. 

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is a key way to make nonprofits like the Cato Institute appealing for workers, the organization argued. 

“By providing across-the-board debt relief, the challenged scheme substantially alters those incentives and frustrates Congress’s goal of making nonprofit employment relatively more attractive to holders of student-loan debt,” the Cato Institute said in its complaint.

The Brown County Taxpayers Association, an organization that advocates for fiscally responsible policies, Nov. 7 filed a motion for  voluntary dismissal of its own appeal after a district judge ruled against its challenge to Biden’s relief plan. The group originally contended that Biden’s relief plan would drive up taxes for its members, pointing to estimates that the plan would cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars. 

U.S. District Judge William Griesbach on Oct. 6 rejected the lawsuit, and the organization unsuccessfully petitioned an appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court to block the loan forgiveness plan. In court documents for the voluntary dismissal, the association said it would bear its own legal costs.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich sued the Biden administration over the loan forgiveness plan on Sept. 30, arguing it will harm his state in several ways. 

For one, it will make it harder for the state government to recruit workers, who can have their debts cleared after making a decade of qualifying payments under an existing federal program, according to the lawsuit. Brnovich said the widespread debt cancellation plan will make this program less appealing. 

He also asserted that the plan will harm the state’s economy by worsening inflation — a common criticism levied against the loan forgiveness program. Brnovich further said he expects the plan to increase Arizona’s borrowing costs.