An iconic measure of US President Joe Bidenwriting off part of the colossal student debt, appeared today to be at risk of being overturned in a hearing at the Supreme Court, which is dominated by conservative justices.

Most of the nine justices appear to believe that the Democratic president overstepped his authority by authorizing a costly program without the express approval of Congress.

Outside the building, in downtown Washington, protesters had gathered in an attempt to influence the judges’ decision. “We’re telling the Supreme Court to listen to the millions who are living in poverty, who want to live like the middle class without being suffocated by debt,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was surrounded by young borrowers.

Omamus Ogenyi, a neuroscience student, 20, has already borrowed $31,000 to finance his studies and wants to know if some of his debt will be written off before he can continue his studies. “I am in a very precarious situation,” he commented, speaking to AFP.

– Crazy amounts –

Higher education costs a fortune in the US, and about 43 million Americans have federal student loan repayments totaling $1.63 trillion.

At the start of the pandemic, Donald Trump’s administration suspended payments on these loans, relying on a 2003 law that allows temporary “relief” for borrowers in the event of a “national disaster.” This measure has been continuously renewed until today.

In late August, President Biden wanted to go further: he announced a write-off of $10,000 for borrowers earning less than $125,000 a year and $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants, which are given to students from very low-income families .

26 million applications were filed and the White House estimates that the total cost to the state will exceed $400 billion.

The government is bypassing Congress

The courts, however, blocked the implementation of the plan, which was appealed by Republican-controlled states and two students who did not meet the criteria to have their debt written off. States accuse the government of depriving taxpayers of money without congressional approval. They believe that the 2003 law covers the “freezing” of loans, but not their cancellation.

“After several failed pieces of legislation,” the government “attempted to bypass Congress,” Nebraska attorney Jim Campbell told the court. His arguments appeared to convince the justices, with the head of the Court, John Roberts, saying he had a “particular sensitivity” to the separation of powers.

The government, for its part, argues that the plaintiffs had no right to sue because they “suffered no damage.” Federal attorney Elizabeth Prelogar asked the Supreme Court to dismiss their appeal, which would mean the case would end here without a decision on the merits.

The Supreme Court, if it doesn’t throw out the case, could instead take the opportunity to say that federal agencies and the government can’t act, on major issues, without Congress’s go-ahead.

“This is going to be a problem for the federal government’s ability to function,” progressive Justice Kendanji Brown Jackson commented.

The Court will announce its decision by June 30.