3 ms·

Actually, MOHELA specifically said it was not harmed by the loan forgiveness and wanted nothing to do with the case. This is why many are baffled by the Court's

Actually, MOHELA specifically said it was not harmed by the loan forgiveness and wanted nothing to do with the case. This is why many are baffled by the Court's decision to ignore Standing.

jadamson 3y ago
MOHELA said no such thing, although it's apparent that many of their employees were against the case. The case was filed by the Missouri AG, who doesn't require every (or indeed any) individual employee of MOHELA to agree in order to prove harm to the state of Missouri.
- Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
  "In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years...Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward." The Student Loan Case’s Unwilling Participant (https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancell...)
  - jadamson 3y ago
    So they didn't say they were not harmed, not even in those internal emails (which are pearl-clutching about the optics of the situation). After that, what we have left is an analysis by a third party which has been ripped to shreds: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-state-standing-in-student-loan-case-comes-up-a-few-dollars-short/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-sta... When Adler says that the report is "carefully worded", what he means is that it is designed to mislead, and he's right. > The authors of the report are essentially trying to argue that because MOHELA revenues are higher than they used to be, it does not matter that, without loan cancellation, they would be higher still. Edit: Volokh -> Adler
    - Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
      So if MOHELA were actually harmed -- shouldn't they be the plaintiff in the lawsuit?
      - jadamson 3y ago
        Their owners - the State of Missouri - are the plaintiff. It should go without saying that I don't require my employees to support legal actions I undertake relating to an entity that I own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Loan_Authority_of_the_State_of_Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Loan_Authorit... Edit: In reality, the technicalities in this case stretch that analogy - Adler writes about that as well in his penultimate paragraph, linking to opinions falling on either side: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/08/arguments-for-standing-in-the-student-loan-cases/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/08/arguments-for-standing-... https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/09/third-party-standing-doctrine-shouldnt-block-lawsuits-challenging-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/09/third-party-standing-do... https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/05/does-anyone-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-against-bidens-student-loan-debt-cancellation-policy/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/05/does-anyone-have-standi...

Actually, MOHELA specifically said it was not harmed by the loan forgiveness and wanted nothing to do with the case. This is why many are baffled by the Court's decision to ignore Standing.

jadamson 3y ago

MOHELA said no such thing, although it's apparent that many of their employees were against the case. The case was filed by the Missouri AG, who doesn't require every (or indeed any) individual employee of MOHELA to agree in order to prove harm to the state of Missouri.

Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
"In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years...Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward." The Student Loan Case’s Unwilling Participant (https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancell...)
- jadamson 3y ago
  So they didn't say they were not harmed, not even in those internal emails (which are pearl-clutching about the optics of the situation). After that, what we have left is an analysis by a third party which has been ripped to shreds: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-state-standing-in-student-loan-case-comes-up-a-few-dollars-short/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-sta... When Adler says that the report is "carefully worded", what he means is that it is designed to mislead, and he's right. > The authors of the report are essentially trying to argue that because MOHELA revenues are higher than they used to be, it does not matter that, without loan cancellation, they would be higher still. Edit: Volokh -> Adler
  - Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
    So if MOHELA were actually harmed -- shouldn't they be the plaintiff in the lawsuit?
    - jadamson 3y ago
      Their owners - the State of Missouri - are the plaintiff. It should go without saying that I don't require my employees to support legal actions I undertake relating to an entity that I own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Loan_Authority_of_the_State_of_Missouri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Loan_Authorit... Edit: In reality, the technicalities in this case stretch that analogy - Adler writes about that as well in his penultimate paragraph, linking to opinions falling on either side: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/08/arguments-for-standing-in-the-student-loan-cases/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/08/arguments-for-standing-... https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/09/third-party-standing-doctrine-shouldnt-block-lawsuits-challenging-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/09/third-party-standing-do... https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/05/does-anyone-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-against-bidens-student-loan-debt-cancellation-policy/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/05/does-anyone-have-standi...