UNBIASED - McCarthy's Removal, Trump’s Eligibility for Speaker, DHS Announces Expedited Border Wall Construction, Biden Forgives $9B of Student Loan Debt, and More.

Episode Date: October 6, 2023

1. McCarthy Becomes First Speaker To Be Removed; Events Leading Up to and Following the Removal; Who's Running in the Next Election; Whether Trump Can Be Speaker; Explainer of Speaker Pro Tempore McHenry; Capitol Hideaways (2:21)2. DHS Announces Waiver of Laws and Regulations to Expedite Border Wall Construction (20:09)3. Clarifying Aspects of Donald Trump's Fraud Trial; Answering Frequently Asked Questions About Money Damages, the Lack of Jury Trial, the Mar-a-Lago Valuation, and the Appeal (25:21)4. Biden Administration Forgives $9B of Student Loan Debt (32:08)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

You are listening to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Friday. I hope you've had a great week. You're ready for the weekend. Speaking of the weekend, I have my weekly newsletter going out on Saturday. It's basically just another source of nonpartisan news for you. It's completely free.

You just subscribe to it by going to jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe, or you can just click on the link in the podcast description. It's there for you as well. Once you're subscribed, you the link in the podcast description. It's there for you as well. Once you're subscribed, you'll get the newsletter on Saturday. So long as you subscribe prior to the newsletter going out, I usually send it out around 10 a.m. on Saturday. So that's that. Today's stories, I have four for you. So I'll be talking about Speaker McCarthy being ousted from his position as speaker. We'll go into a lot of detail on that. That'll take up the first half

of this episode. I'll then talk about the Biden administration expediting border wall construction by waiving some laws and regulations. As the third story, I'm going to clarify some issues presented in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial in New York. It's basically questions I've gotten from you, the most frequently asked questions, if you will. So I just want to clarify those issues. The fourth story will be about the Biden administration announcing another $9 billion in loan forgiveness. So those are the stories for today. As always, if you haven't already, please go ahead and leave my show a review if you like what you hear today. If you have already,

I really appreciate it. It helps support my show more than you know. It lets other people know why they should listen to my show because they see all the good things you guys are saying and then they want to check it out themselves and it just kind of continues on. And before you know it, I have more and more listeners because you guys took the time to review. So thank you for that. And of course, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. As we know, Kevin McCarthy was ousted from his position as Speaker of the House following a motion to vacate that was brought by Representative Matt Gaetz. I want to talk about it, but I'm

going to go into a lot of detail. So I want to mention the events that led to his ouster. I want to talk about why this motion was arguably kind of easy to put forward. I want to talk about how the Speaker pro tempore was selected. I also want to touch on some events that have taken place since the ouster, when we can expect the next Speaker election, who's running in it. I want to clear up some confusion behind the 1910 Speaker that people are kind of confused about, saying McCarthy isn't the first speaker to be removed, but he in fact is, and I will tell you why. And then I also want to answer the question of whether Donald Trump could be speaker. That's a question I've gotten a lot in the last couple

of days, so I will clarify that as well. I briefly touched on the lead up to the ouster last episode, but just to kind of cover it again, since January, when Speaker McCarthy was elected, him and Representative Matt Gaetz have been butting heads. And really, Speaker McCarthy's been butting heads with a few of the Republican representatives that are considered hardline Republicans, but Representative Matt Gaetz is really the one that's been threatening this motion to vacate for a long time. And when Speaker McCarthy was elected in January, he really had to work hard for the speakership. It took 15 rounds of voting over four days,

and the last time that it took that many rounds of voting was 100 years ago. And even then, I believe it only took nine rounds of voting. So 15 rounds of voting was really this historic kind of moment in politics, because it kind of foreshadowed the events that would come in the months to follow and the sort of divide that we saw in the Republican Party then and how it's presenting itself now with McCarthy's ouster. In the midst of this negotiation he had to enter into with these Republicans in order to get their vote to get him elected after 15 rounds of voting, he had to enter into an agreement with these Republican representatives that were holding out. And according to Representative Gates, what this agreement

said was that McCarthy was, while he was serving as speaker, he was supposed to pass single subject spending bills. He was supposed to call a vote on balanced budget and term limits. He was supposed to release the full January 6th tapes. He committed to not using Democrat votes to pass legislation that advanced priorities of the president. And there were other terms along, you know, these same lines. Something else, though, that was agreed upon at this time with the Republican representatives was McCarthy basically agreed to reduce the number of representatives necessary to bring a motion to vacate. And a motion to vacate is obviously that motion that is brought to remove a speaker. Traditionally, only one representative was needed. But in 2019,

when Democrats took the majority in the House, House rules changed and made it so a motion to vacate could be brought only if offered by direction of a party caucus or conference, which was a much higher bar than the traditional one representative threshold. But when McCarthy was seeking the speakership, he agreed to bring it back down to that traditional threshold of one representative. Come the end of September, McCarthy hadn't fulfilled his end of the bargain. And some of these Republican representatives, specifically Matt Gaetz, were getting really frustrated. Then the government shutdown debacle happens, and McCarthy decides to keep the government funded with this stopgap measure that required the Democrats'

support. Well, Matt Gaetz specifically, you know, other Republican representatives weren't happy either, but Matt Gaetz really felt that this was the straw that broke the camel's back and said a motion to vacate was coming. So a motion to vacate was brought on Monday. Per House rules, the vote on the motion has to happen within two days of its introduction. So the vote was taken on Tuesday afternoon. The final vote was 216 to 210, which satisfied the simple majority requirement, and McCarthy was removed. Eight Republicans voted to remove him from speakership. The rest were in support of him staying, but obviously that wasn't enough. What his removal means is that he will no longer serve as speaker, but he will remain as a representative. So he keeps his spot in Congress as a rep, but obviously he is no

longer speaker. Following his removal, he said at a news conference he won't be running for re-election, and he said in part, quote, I don't regret standing up for choosing governance over grievance. It is my responsibility. It is my job. I do not regret negotiating. Our government is designed to find compromise. I don't regret my efforts to build coalitions and find solutions. I was raised to solve problems, not create them. End quote. He went on to say that he knew when he cooperated with Democrats to pass a stopgap measure that some of the GOP representatives would make the motion to vacate, and it didn't matter to him. He went

into it knowing that, and he felt comfortable in his decision. Now, obviously, you have those eight Republican representatives that voted to remove him, but for the most part, Republicans aren't thrilled with what's going on. One Republican representative called the vote to him a vote for chaos. Another GOP representative expressed frustration over the vote, saying that all the good work that they've done was derailed by a small group and that it's extremely frustrating. Most of the Republican presidential candidates also disagreed with McCarthy's removal. Trump questioned why Republicans are always fighting with one another and not the Democrats. Tim Scott called

Matt Gaetz a polarizing figure. Mike Pence said he was deeply disappointed. And Asa Hutchinson said McCarthy's ouster was a gift to Democrats. So that's how other politicians are feeling. Now, obviously, you have the politicians that were in support of the removal, and that's why he was removed. Now, something else I spoke about last episode was the continuity rules of Congress that were enacted after 9-11. And one of those rules was that when the Speaker took their position, they had to create a list of Speaker pro tempore options in the event that the office was vacant. This list of options, though, is not publicly available. It's kept with the House clerk, and it isn't made public until there's a vacancy. So the Speaker makes

this list, Speaker McCarthy in this instance, made the list when he took the position as Speaker, but it wasn't until he was ousted that we found out who the Speaker pro tempore would be. And in this case, Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina is the one who took over. The thing with Speaker Pro Tempore is that their role is limited. So they can only recess the House, adjourn the chamber, and recognize Speaker nominations. They also preside over the actual Speakership election whenever that happens, but their role is limited. They don't have the same abilities as a speaker would. A speaker can do all of the things a speaker pro tempore can do, plus administer the oath of office to House members, determine which bills get debated and

voted on. They count and declare votes. The speaker also sends bills to committees. They sign bills and resolutions that pass the House. So they have a long list of roles and responsibilities that the Speaker pro tempore just doesn't get. Obviously, the Speaker pro tempore position is a temporary position. Though, interestingly enough, House rules don't govern how long a Speaker pro tempore can serve. So it's up to the House to decide when it will hold its next election. It's looking like Tuesday will be the day that the candidates make their case for speakership, and a vote is tentatively set for Wednesday, but the representatives that are definitely running are House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Kevin Hearn is also considering running. And House Majority Whip Tom Emmer was seen as a potential candidate, but he has since announced his run for majority leader. So that's what we're looking at as far as the next speaker goes. Now let's talk a little bit about McHenry, and then we'll finish by clarifying what happened in 1910, how that's different from now, and the Donald Trump situation and whether he could be speaker. Representative Patrick McHenry, as I said, is a North Carolina representative. He started his career in politics in 1998.

He worked for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign. He was appointed special assistant to the labor secretary in 2001. He was elected to the North Carolina House in 2002, elected to Congress in 2004, and he just won his 10th term this past November. McHenry was one of McCarthy's allies when he was fighting for his speaker position. He actually helped convert some of the hardline Republicans to vote for McCarthy, and he was then later deployed as a top negotiator in preventing the default. So he was one of the House Republicans negotiators in negotiating that whole ordeal with President Biden to prevent the default. When McHenry took his Speaker pro tempore position, one of his first orders of business that made headlines was

dispelling former Speaker Nancy Pelosi from her Capitol hideaway office. He also dispelled Majority Leader Steny Hoyer from his Capitol hideaway office, but that didn't really make as much news as the Nancy Pelosi eviction did. And then it later came out that it was actually Speaker McCarthy who directed McHenry to, you know, evict them from their offices. But I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about what Capitol hideaways are, because I find them to be pretty interesting. And I think you'll appreciate this tangent because I think I have a feeling you'll find it as interesting as I do. Capitol hideaways are these secret offices that are in the Capitol building. And there's about 100 of them.

They're mostly meant for senators, but a few of the more senior members of the House will get offices too. The doors are only marked by a room number, but you can't find the offices on any directory of the Capitol. So that's why they're called hideaways. No one really knows, unless you're on the inn, you don't really know where these offices are and you don't know whose office belongs to who. They're used as more private spaces. So, you know, they can be used to prepare for meetings or have confidential meetings or maybe even take a nap down there or conduct some more personal orders of business.

You can use your imagination there as to what that means. Actually, you know what? Let's give some details. Lyndon B. Johnson actually at one time had five hideaway offices where he would see various women at different times. And Bill Moyers, who was once the White House press secretary and White House chief of staff under Lyndon B. Johnson, recounted a time where an unnamed senator, so we don't know who the senator is, but he stashed his mistress in a hideaway so well hidden that it took him hours to find her again. So what do these

hideaways look like? A journalist from Politico actually had the pleasure of seeing a hideaway at one time and described one office as being an unmarked room accessed by corridors and staircases reminiscent of the ones that appear and disappear in Hogwarts. And here's something that's interesting. These hideaways actually range from tiny little basement cells to big, lavish offices. And as you would expect, the more senior officials get the bigger, nicer offices. The Kennedy Hideaway, as it's known because it was Senator Edward Kennedy's hideaway, is considered to be one of the most luxurious. And it has a fireplace, arched ceilings, and a big window that apparently has a big expansive view of the National Mall. It's been described as being like an upscale club room.

Then on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, the basement offices, and this was reported back in 1991, so who knows if it's been renovated. But at the time, it was less than 300 square feet, had a low fiberboard ceiling, a desk, a cheap office chair on rollers, a fridge, a cupboard, and a cot with no bedspread. So I'm imagining all of this stuff in under 300 square feet. I feel like that is a sell, right? So that's the deal with the hideaways. And again, these are separate from their actual offices on Capitol Hill. These are more secret, hidden away offices, as the name implies.

Now that you have a thorough explanation of hideaways, let's talk about this news that Nancy Pelosi was evicted from hers on Tuesday. And as I said, it was one of McHenry's first actions, but a couple of GOP representatives have said that McCarthy was actually the one behind the boot because Pelosi's office specifically is supposedly, according to certain GOP representatives, meant for the former speaker. And now that McCarthy has taken over that role as former speaker, he now gets it. But Pelosi says that's not the case. She let the speaker that preceded her have a much larger office suite than she had when she was speaker. So, you know, conflicting stories on both sides. But the email pertaining to the eviction came from McHenry's office, and it said the speaker Tempore is going to

reassign H-132 for Speaker office use. Please vacate the space tomorrow. The room will be re-keyed, end quote. And the reason that this made news is kind of, I mean, it's obvious in the sense that everything makes news when it's one party against the other, but also because at the time Nancy Pelosi received this email, she was in San Francisco for Senator Dianne Feinstein's funeral. So not great timing for her. Pelosi called her eviction a sharp departure from tradition and said that now that the new Republican leadership has settled this important matter, let's hope they work on what's truly important for the American

people. Now, as I said, I do want to briefly touch on this speaker from 1910 and why that's different, because a lot of people are misunderstood and think that this McCarthy being removed is not the first time a speaker has been removed, and it is, and this is why. Speaker Cannon, in 1910, had his rules power stripped from the House. So the House basically created this new committee that had the rules power and stripped that power from Speaker Cannon. And they did it with the intention of removing him of his power. But then he was like, in order to actually remove me from my position, you guys need to pass a motion to vacate. So they introduced a motion to vacate, and the motion to vacate failed. So he was never removed. He may have lost his

rulemaking power, but he was never removed as Speaker, which is why Speaker McCarthy is the first speaker to be removed from that position. And just as a fun fact, Speaker Cannon actually had the office across the street from Capitol Hill named after him. It's called the Cannon House Office Building, and that's who it's named after. Finally, let's finish this conversation by discussing Donald Trump. Can he be Speaker of the House? First off, this is not something that Donald Trump wants. He says he's been getting calls about possibly becoming the next Speaker, but said his total focus is on being President and said there are other people in the Republican Party who could do the job. From a legal standpoint and a rules standpoint, there aren't

any laws and there's not anything in the Constitution that prohibits Donald Trump from being Speaker of the House because the Constitution doesn't have any required, like, you don't have to be a member of Congress to be the Speaker. So that's not really an issue. With that said, the Republican conference rules of the 118th Congress, which was just, you know, these rules were just enacted in January, does say that a member of the Republican leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years of imprisonment may be imposed. So obviously, Donald Trump, as we know, is facing multiple felony indictments now that rule could be changed if a majority of the house republican conference wants to modify that rule they could

but rules aren't typically changed in the middle of a session they're usually decided at the start of each session so that's not really likely, though it could happen. You just never know. Technically, could he be elected speaker? Yes. But he's not running. He already said he doesn't want it. And that's that. Okay, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll finish with the rest of the stories. A notice posted to the Federal Register Wednesday night said that the Secretary of Homeland Security has deemed it necessary to waive certain laws and regulations in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads at the southern border. Now, this notice comes after state of emergency declarations have been made in various cities in Texas, as well as New York City, of course due to an overwhelming number

of border crossings. I previously reported that CBP released the border encounter report for August, which showed roughly 230,000 border encounters. September's report was just released showing roughly 260,000 border encounters, and that actually broke the previous record, which was set last December at 252,000 border encounters. So the numbers are rising, and that clearly played a role in the DHS deciding to waive these laws. But here's what happened. The original announcement to build this particular stretch of wall was announced in June. But the purpose of this notice is specifically to speed up the building, to expedite the building of this wall, because we're now seeing much higher numbers at the border than when the announcement was

originally made in June. So it's basically an effort to act quicker than originally planned. Here's what the notice says. The United States Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley sector is an area of high illegal entry. As of early August 2023, border patrol has encountered over 245,000 such entrants attempting to enter the United States between ports of entry in the Rio Grande Valley sector in fiscal year 2023. And let me just pause and say there's a difference between border encounters at ports of entry, which is what that just cited to, and total border encounters, which are the numbers I cited to just a couple of minutes ago. Total border encounter numbers are always going to be higher because obviously not everyone

is trying to enter through ports of entry. So that's why there's a bit of a discrepancy between the number I just gave you and the numbers I cited to just a couple of minutes ago. Anyway, the notice goes on to say, therefore, I must use my authority to install additional physical barriers and roads in the Rio Grande Valley sector. Therefore, DHS will take immediate action to construct barriers and roads. Construction will be funded by a fiscal year 2019 appropriation that the notice cites to is an appropriations bill that specifically funded wall projects in the Rio Grande Valley sector, and DHS is required to use the funding for that purpose and nothing else. The notice then lists about 10 different stretches of land in the state of Texas, specifically in Starr County, which is in southern Texas, that are deemed areas of high

illegal entry and are otherwise known as project areas. So that's where the border will be constructed. I believe it'll stretch about 17 miles, 17 to 20 miles. But the notice also said, quote, there is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries. So 26 laws and regulations were waived in order to expedite construction. These are laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, laws you may not necessarily think of when it comes to border construction, but DHS needed to waive in order to expedite the build of the wall. Despite these waivers, though, so DHS is saying that there is presently an acute and immediate need, implying that these physical

barriers will help the number of unlawful entries into the United States. But the president on Thursday said he doesn't believe border walls work. At the Oval Office, he said, quote, I'll answer one question on the border wall. The money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn't. They wouldn't. And in the meantime, there's nothing under the law other than they have to use that money for what it was appropriated. I can't stop that, end quote. And when asked whether he believes border walls work, he responded, no. Karine Jean-Pierre, I tuned in to the press briefing on Thursday. She was doubling down

on the president's statement that border walls don't work, that the reason it's being done is because these funds couldn't be reappropriated anywhere else, and DHS has to abide by the law and put that money to where it's intended to go. She also said at the press briefing that she felt the wall was a waste of money. So that is what's going on with the wall construction at the border. Now let's jump into clarifying some issues in the Trump fraud trial in New York. I get the same questions a lot, and I just felt like I wanted one place to put them, because I think this will really clear up some of the main issues going on that people have questions about. I know I said I wouldn't talk about this case every episode. Here we are. I

really promise I won't talk about this every episode episode. Here we are. I really promise I won't talk about this every episode. But what's important to me at the risk of being redundant is clearing up any confusion and questions that you may have about the legal issues. First, let's talk about damages. One of the main questions I've gotten is how can New York ask the judge to order Trump to pay $250 million when all the banks were paid back and there were no victims, as Trump says? There's a remedy called disgorgement. It's meant to prohibit illegal profits. It does not require a financial loss to a party. So if the judge finds that the attorney general's claims are true and that Trump and his co-defendants fraudulently inflated the value of his assets

and in turn, you know, turned a much larger profit than they otherwise would have, the judge can grant damages in the form of disgorgement. And again, it doesn't require a loss to anyone else. Think of it as a fine that's paid to the state for illegally profiting. Hopefully that clears it up a little. And as I said, if you want a little more detail, just go check out my social media. Now let's talk about the jury trial. I briefly touched on this last episode, but I'll dive into it a little bit more. So the judge at the beginning of the trial said that neither side asked for a jury and

that even if they did, the particular remedies sought mandate that the trial be a bench trial, meaning that the judge decides the issues, not a jury. The Seventh Amendment, which gives us our right to a jury trial, doesn't apply in cases seeking equitable relief. Equitable relief is different than monetary damages. Even though this case is asking the defendants to pay money, it's not considered monetary damages. Discouragement is a type of equitable relief. Because of that, the right to a jury wasn't presented to the parties, right? However, Trump's legal team could have definitely litigated the issue if they felt it was worthwhile. The judge probably wouldn't have ruled in their favor if they had challenged it, but it could have been appealed, you know, higher up.

So what this tells me from a legal standpoint is that Trump's team didn't necessarily feel it was worthwhile to litigate, whether that's because they felt they wouldn't win or because they didn't actually want a jury, because keep in mind, Donald Trump has said before it's impossible to get a fair trial in New York, you know, even with a jury of his peers. So perhaps they didn't even want to try and felt that they had better odds with a judge deciding the case and not a jury. I don't know for sure, but those are the options. So it's not that anyone is lying here. It's that both sides are spinning the facts in a way that suits their narrative, right? The judge said a jury trial wasn't requested. Trump and his attorneys say that there was never an option to request a jury trial. Both are true. A jury trial wasn't requested because there wasn't

an option to check a box. Does that make sense? Finally, let's talk about the valuation of Mar-a-Lago. Part of the judge's ruling a couple of weeks ago, when he found that the assets had been inflated, that the defendants had committed persistent and repeated fraud, was that Mar-a-Lago was reported on financial statements as being worth between $426 million and $613 million. But the judge, in relying on the Palm Beach County property appraiser's value, said the property was only worth between $18 and $27 million, and he called this an overvaluation of over 2,000%. This ruling has been appealed, not specifically the Mar-a-Lago portion of the ruling, but just the general fraud rulings,

which includes the Mar-a-Lago valuation. However, the Mar-a-Lago valuation will play a big role in the appeal because one of the main issues is going to be how the judge came to this conclusion and whether that methodology was proper. The issue is when you talk to people in the luxury real estate industry, they will tell you that the tax assessor's valuation isn't considered when valuing a property. And following the judge's ruling, we've actually heard from some executives in the real estate industry. So the president and CEO of Miller Samuel, which is a real estate appraisal company in New York, told CNN that it's not correct to assume that a tax assessment and market value are the same thing. Appraisal values and market values are very different, and that especially applies to

unique properties. With that said, it's also important to note that industry experts, while they're calling this $18 million valuation inaccurate, delusional, what have you, they're claiming that the property would list closer to $300 million, which is still lower than what was listed on the financial statements, right? It's a lot closer to the value on the financial statements, but it's still lower. So it's not clear that that would change the outcome of the ruling. You know what I mean? Because even though it's closer to the valuation, it's still a lower number by about 100 to 300 million. So it could still be determined that the financial statements are fraudulent. And that kind of brings up another point.

Even though the general consensus is that the appraisal value was not the most accurate method of determining the value of the property, Mar-a-Lago isn't the only property at issue here. There's also 40 Wall Street, the penthouse at Trump Tower, the Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, the golf course in Scotland. So even though this Mar-a-Lago property specifically is causing such a conversation, probably just because that conclusion was the most shocking of the others from the judge, but just keep in mind, it's not the only property at issue. So the market values versus the appraisal values of all of these properties will be a highly contested issue on appeal. And as I said, the appeal has already been filed.

It's just not clear when that appeal will be heard. And the trial is still ongoing for the six remaining issues. So it's possible the appeal doesn't happen until maybe all of the issues are sorted out and perhaps Trump wants to appeal everything. We just don't know. So only time will tell on that. Finally, the fourth and final story I have for you is President Biden announcing an additional $9 billion in student debt relief this week. Let's talk about why he's able to cancel debt despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling and what this new forgiveness plan entails. I'm going to keep this story short, sweet, and to the point because that's all it really needs while still providing you with sufficient detail. We know that the Supreme Court ruled over the

summer. The ruling was that the HEROES Act, which was enacted following 9-11, didn't allow for the president to make such a broad cancellation of student debt. However, following that decision, the president was very clear that he would find other ways to cancel debt where he could. It wouldn't necessarily be as impactful as the original plan or help as many people as the original plan, but he would work to cancel debt where he could. So we've seen him cancel debt a couple of times since then, and the methodology for doing so is by enforcing already existing rules and kind of tweaking them a bit or modifying them a bit. For instance, back in July, shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, President Biden relieved debt based on the Higher Education Act. So the

relevant portion of that act said that borrowers who are on an income-driven repayment plan are eligible for forgiveness after making either 240 monthly payments or 300 monthly payments. And whether you fell into the 240 category or 300 category depended on your income-driven repayment plan. Previously, there were certain conditions that didn't count towards that monthly payment forgiveness threshold, that 240 or 300 number. This was things like, you know, if a borrower spent at least 12 consecutive months in forbearance, it wouldn't count towards that payment threshold. If a borrower made late or partial payments while in repayment status, it wouldn't count towards that payment threshold. If a borrower made late or partial payments while in repayment status, it wouldn't count towards that number, things like that.

But what President Biden said is that these conditions, and there was like a list of them, I think there were six or seven conditions, that should have counted towards the monthly payment threshold. And therefore, we are going to retroactively apply these circumstances that we think should have counted all along, and in turn, we'll either put borrowers closer to that forgiveness threshold or put them over the threshold and entitle them to forgiveness. So that was that in July. Under this new forgiveness, there's basically three categories of people that are affected. So the first category consists of borrowers that have made 20 years or more of payments, but never got the relief that they were entitled to

under, you know, that income driven repayment plan, you know, forgiveness threshold we just talked about. The White House says that roughly 51,000 borrowers will be affected from that, and that accounts for roughly 2.8 of the 9 billion forgiven. Another 5.2 billion is being forgiven under public service loan forgiveness programs, and another 1.2 billion is being forgiven to those with a total and permanent disability who have been approved for discharge through a data match with the Social Security Administration. So that is President Biden's most recent effort to forgive student loan debt debt and that concludes this episode i hope you enjoyed it if you did please don't forget to leave me that review

don't forget my newsletter goes out tomorrow saturday around 10 a.m so subscribe if you're interested have a great weekend and i will talk to you on tuesday on Tuesday.