The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that the Biden administration does not have the authority to wipe out nearly half-a-trillion dollars in student debt.
The decision denies relief to about 40 million Americans who stood to have up to $20,000 in student debt erased by the plan using the HEROES Act.
There were actually two student loan forgiveness decisions made on Friday: The first was about whether two private citizens had the right to challenge the plan. The court unanimously said that the pair did not have standing, and their challenge was thrown out.
However, in the case where the decision to strike down the forgiveness plan was made, the court said that Missouri — one of six states that challenged the plan — did have legal standing. This allowed the court to consider whether the secretary of education could use the HEROES Act to forgive student loan debt.
Here's how the court voted on that case.
The Supreme Court's decision fell along ideological lines, much like Thursday's decision to end race-based affirmative action.
Chief Justice John Roberts voted against the student loan forgiveness plan and delivered the majority opinion, saying that U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has the authority to "waive or modify" the HEROES Act, but not "rewrite that statute from the ground up."
"The Secretary's comprehensive debt cancellation plan cannot fairly be called a waiver—it not only nullifies existing provisions, but augments and expands them dramatically. It cannot be mere modification, because it constitutes 'effectively the introduction of a whole new regime,'" Roberts wrote.
Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with Roberts.
Barrett filed a concurring opinion, writing that the court "can uphold the Secretary of Education's loan cancellation program only if he points to 'clear congressional authorization' for it."
The court's three liberal voices — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all opposed the decision. Kagan filed a dissent where she called the decision to take up the case, let alone vote on it, an "overreach."
"The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary's loan forgiveness plan," Kagan wrote. "They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giving those States a forum — in adjudicating their complaint — the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies."
In the dissent, Kagan wrote that Cardona acted within the "broad authority" provided by the HEROES Act, saying that the decision to alter usual rules "fits comfortably within" the parameters set by the statute.
Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.
Kerry Breen is a news editor and reporter for CBS News. Her reporting focuses on current events, breaking news and substance use.