Otterman 1

Lukas Otterman
Dr. Michael Thunberg
American Politics PO105
12-09-2023
Ambition Must Be Made to Counteract Ambition: Biden v. Nebraska

On November 24th, 2023, all three branches of the United States government system

clashed in an epic and controversial struggle for power. The Supreme Court had just struck down

a crucial piece of legislation, one that would have provided approximately $430 billion to

citizens struggling with student loan debt. The case was Biden v. Nebraska, and even with funds

of that scale hanging in the balance, each player in court that day was convinced of their own

lawful legitimacy. Pro-funding had the support of both congress and the president, a powerful

unity that would seem to override most opposition; while Nebraska and its supporting states used

the power of the court to cite the written law, particularly the “Higher Education Relief

Opportunities for Students” Act of 2003; thus ultimately winning the case and shutting down

Bidens proposed bill.

This case is politically important for a few reasons; firstly, it gives key insight into the

Biden administrations goals. One of the best ways to predict and realize a president’s agenda, is

by watching the money flow, both where it is cut, and where it is released. This debt-relief

program, with its hundreds of billions of dollars primed to be allocated to it, is a clear indicator

of Bidens present and future intentions, his goals, and the interest groups which he supports.

Secondly, this case provides an excellent example of the court process, its strengths,

weaknesses, the players involved and the legitimacy of its ultimate decision. On the first hand,

there are two types of groups which make use of the judicial system, repeat-players, and one-

shotters. Repeat-players tend to be large groups such as corporations or (in this case) even the
 Otterman 2

other governmental branches. These institutions go to court seeking ultimately to change policy

and set precedent. This is an especially potent idea due to the United States law system, know as

a “Common Law” system, which—rather than trying to account for and predict every lawful

discrepancy in the future—seeks rather to allow for each case to set a precedent for the next,

similar, disagreement. This means that all former cases regarding a comparable suit will have

their outcomes taken into great consideration when presiding over a contemporary case. History

matters. Naturally this gives substantial power to a patient repeat-player, giving them the ability

to indirectly nullify future conflicts by winning a favorable and analogous case in the past. And

so, the Biden administration too wished to set policy through this case, creating a precedent for

passing presidentially approved funding for indebted students.

One-shotters on the other hand, are generally individuals who rarely frequent the

courtroom and seek merely to protect rights as set forth by law. Criminal trials, domestic trials,

or an occasional lawsuit against a corporation who mistreated the defendant. Peculiarly enough,

the state of Nebraska, large as it is, and with the political strength that it has, still serves as a one-

shotter in this particular case. It has no wish to repeat this trial, no wish to further engage

judicially with the presidential or legislative branches; it desires merely to protect its (the states)

own self-interest. This does not mean that precedent or policy will not be affected through it,

quite the opposite, by securing its victory Nebraska and its supporters have (at least for the time

being) shut down any further attempts of large-scale funding relief for students. But unlike the

Bidan administrations desire for a policy catalyst by its win, Nebraska and the other states

change nothing by their victory besides gaining a few more years of preserved self-interest.

As for the court itself, it was obligated to wait as a passive institution for the lawsuit to be

filed. However, this great weakness of the court was bypassed when Nebraska sued, “citing an
 Otterman 3

adverse negative impact on the states and the Biden administration’s lack of a clear grant of

power under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003.”

(National Constitution Center). Upon receiving the case, the Supreme Court wasted no time in

preforming its two basic functions, its “Judicial Review” ability, which allows for the

indiscriminate interpretation of the constitution as established in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison

case. And its ability to review and engage with the legitimacy of active and proposed law. This

case weighed heavily upon the later, and ultimately decided that, in the words of chief justice

John Roberts, “The text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary’s loan forgiveness

program. The Secretary’s power under the Act to ‘modify’ does not permit ‘basic and

fundamental changes in the scheme’ designed by Congress.” (National Constitution Center).

Ultimately however, the case remained a 6-3 decision, which gave many hope that

perhaps a few years of fermentation would shift opinion enough that a different ruling might be

possible.

This 2023 court case is the perfect example of each governmental branch working at

maximum capacity. The Legislative branch used its power of setting national agenda to propose

and vote into existence a brand-new bill which would allocate government funding to millions.

The Presidential branch approved the bill, not only abstaining from its veto, but endorsing it and

promoting it to the public. And the states who believed in its adverse effects sued according to

protocol, and allowed the Supreme Court—the Judicial branch—to act according to its strengths

and provide a well-thought-out decision which they believed would reflect the public and

national good. It is a perfect description of founder James Madisons crucial idea of governmental

checks and balances, that, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” (Federalist Papers).
 Otterman 4

Works Cited:

"Supreme Court Rules against Biden Administration’s Student Loan Forgiveness Program."
National Constitution Center, 30 Jun. 2023, constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-rules-
against-biden-administrations-student-loan-forgiveness-program.

The Federalist Papers. Signet Classics, 2003.