来源：《洛杉矶时报》
原文刊登日期：2023年6月30日
It’s not surprising but still deeply disappointing that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the Biden administration’s plan to provide more than $400 billion in student loan forgiveness. Compounding the injustice is the fact that a divided Congress is unlikely to fill the vacuum left by the decision with remedial legislation. But advocates for debt relief should continue to press their case, not just at the Capitol but in next year’s elections.
美国最高法院裁定拜登政府提供4000多亿美元学生贷款豁免的计划无效，这并不奇怪，但仍然令人深感失望。一个分裂的国会不太可能用补救立法来填补该决定留下的真空，这一事实加剧了不公正。但减免债务的倡导者应该继续推动他们的主张，不仅在国会大厦，而且在明年的选举中。
Crushing student debt is a burden not just on former students but on the national economy. The pain was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is why the Biden administration acted, claiming authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. That law empowers the secretary of Education to waive or modify loan provisions in response to a national emergency.
沉重的学生债务不仅是借款人的负担，也是国家经济的负担。新冠疫情加剧了这种痛苦，这就是拜登政府根据2003年《高等教育学生救济机会法》采取行动的原因。该法授权教育部长在国家紧急情况下放弃或修改贷款条款。
The Biden plan was not an indiscriminate bonanza but rather was targeted to help those most in need of relief. For borrowers with an annual income of less than $125,000, the Education Department would forgive up to $10,000 in student loans. Recipients of Pell Grants, a form of financial aid for lower-income students, could qualify for up to $20,000 in loan cancellation. The scope of the problem was evident in the fact that 26 million borrowers applied for relief.
拜登的计划不是不加选择的大撒币，而是有针对性地帮助那些最需要救济的人。对于年收入低于12.5万美元的借款人，教育部将免除至多1万美元的学生贷款。佩尔助学金是为低收入学生提供的一种经济援助形式，它的获得者可能有资格取消至多2万美元的贷款。有2600万借贷者申请救济，这一事实表明了问题的严重程度。
But in a 6-3 decision Friday, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court held that the administration exceeded its authority. In response to a lawsuit brought by Nebraska and five other Republican-led states, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the HEROES Act allows the secretary to “waive or modify” provisions, “not to rewrite that statute from the ground up.”
但在周五6比3的裁决中，最高法院的保守派多数认为政府越权。针对内布拉斯加州和其他五个共和党领导的州提起的诉讼，首席大法官小约翰·G·罗伯茨写道，《高等教育学生救济机会法》允许教育部长“放弃或修改”条款，“而不是从头开始重写该法规。”
Justice Elena Kagan made a persuasive case that the administration was acting within its authority. As she wrote in a dissent: “The statute provides the Secretary with broad authority to give emergency relief to student-loan borrowers, including by altering usual discharge rules. What the secretary did fits comfortably within that delegation.” She emphasized that the delegation of authority is not some tucked-away provision but “is at the statute’s very center.”
大法官埃琳娜·卡根提出了一个有说服力的理由，认为政府是在其职权范围内行事。正如她在一份异议书中所写：“该法律赋予教育部长广泛的权力，可以向学生贷款借款人提供紧急救济，包括修改通常的清偿规则。教育部长的所作所为完全符合该授权。”她强调，权力委托不是什么隐藏的条款，而是“该法律的核心”。
Inaction and obstruction on Capitol Hill have often forced presidents to respond to pressing national problems with executive action. In this case, that action was grounded in a long-standing law. Now it is the duty of Congress to ensure that this relief program is carried out.
国会的不作为和阻挠常常迫使总统采取行政行动来应对紧迫的国家问题。在本案中，这一行动是基于一项长期存在的法律。现在，国会有责任确保这项救济计划得以实施。
Reacting to Friday’s decision, President Biden said he will pursue some relief for student loan borrowers based on another law, the 1965 Higher Education Act. This backup plan may take longer to establish than the plan blocked by the court — which is all the more reason candidates for Congress next year should be pressed to restore the lifeline Biden tried to extend.
拜登总统对星期五的决定作出回应说，他将根据另一项法律，即1965年的《高等教育法》，为学生贷款借款人寻求一些救济。这个后备计划可能比被最高法院阻止的计划需要更长的时间来制定——这就是为什么明年的国会候选人应该感受到压力，恢复拜登试图延长的生命线。