[calderarrow]

I've been trying to understand the rationale of the court in simpler terms. Is this an adequate understanding of the reasoning:

1. Congress delegates some of its authority to issue/handle student loans to the executive branch via the US dept of education and some legislation passed in the past.

2. As President and leader of the executive branch, Biden wants to utilize the authority granted to him to modify the terms of the loans due to the impact of the COVID 19 national emergency. [0].

3. As part of his loan modifications, he wants to forgive a certain portion of the loans altogether, for which he was sued.

4. The Supreme Court ruled that the modifications of the loan forgiveness were ultimately unconstitutional due to the major questions doctrine, implying that while Congress may have delegated some authority to the executive branch for managing loans, outright forgiveness on such a scale would be considered economically significant, and therefore would be presumed not to be delegated. [1].

Am I missing something?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Nebraska.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine

[zeroonetwothree]

Yes. The Court has decided that "modify" does not mean "cancel entirely".

(I also think it's questionable because we no longer have a "national emergency" anymore but they didn't really have to reach that aspect)