SJRES-182-119
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Voice Vote. (CR S2407)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a rule issued by the Department of Education governing the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. If enacted, the rule would be voided and the Department of Education would be prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future without new congressional authorization. The bill does not specify which specific provisions of the Direct Loan rule it targets, but the CRA mechanism would eliminate the entire rule as submitted.
Who benefits
Federal student loan borrowers who may have faced new obligations or restrictions under the nullified rule. Colleges and universities that may have faced new compliance requirements. Loan servicers whose operational requirements could be reduced. Congress, which would reassert oversight authority over federal student loan policy. Taxpayers, if the rule involved expanded loan forgiveness or repayment subsidies that would have increased federal costs.
Who is hurt
Borrowers who stood to benefit from the rule's provisions — for example, those who may have received more favorable repayment terms, expanded forgiveness eligibility, or other borrower protections. Advocacy organizations focused on student debt relief. The Department of Education, which would lose regulatory authority in this area. Future borrowers who might have benefited from the rule's framework.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Department of Education exceeded its statutory authority by issuing sweeping changes to the Direct Loan Program without clear congressional authorization — a concern reinforced by the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the Biden-era student loan forgiveness cases. They contend that Congress, not an executive agency, should set the terms of a federal lending program that carries trillions of dollars in outstanding obligations, and that the CRA is the appropriate constitutional tool for restoring that balance.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Department of Education has long-standing statutory authority under the Higher Education Act to administer and modify the Direct Loan Program, and that using the CRA to nullify the rule strips borrowers of protections or benefits they were counting on. They contend that blocking the rule through a blanket disapproval resolution — rather than targeted legislation — prevents any future agency from addressing the same policy problems, even through a narrower, better-tailored rule, causing lasting harm to borrowers.
Constitutional context
The Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the major questions doctrine are both relevant here. Under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), agency rules claiming authority over issues of vast economic and political significance — such as large-scale student loan modifications — require clear congressional authorization. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts independently assess whether an agency's statutory authority supports its rule, without deferring to the agency's own interpretation.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by nullifying the executive agency's rule; the CRA's "substantially similar" prohibition limits the Department of Education's future rulemaking in this area, and only new legislation could restore that authority.
Historical precedent
Congress used the Congressional Review Act in 2017 to nullify a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau arbitration rule, and the Biden administration's broad student loan forgiveness rule was struck down by the Supreme Court in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) under the major questions doctrine.