California home insurance: What’s more important, coverage or cost?

• June 30, 2023

California’s home insurance challenges are a complex web of risk management, construction costs, pricing algorithms, climate forecasts and regulatory minutia.

Recently, State Farm and Allstate — two major home insurers in California – chose to stop writing new property policies, citing rising costs. Their moves raise fears of a potential statewide insurance shortage.

This begs the question: What are fair premiums and how will they offer homeowners decent protection while providing insurers a fair profit?

Now, insurance pricing logic makes the average human’s head hurt. It requires calculating the risks of everything from major catastrophes to modest calamities at just one home. The variables run from climate to construction to crime.

Add that up and then make a big bet: How much money for how much protection?

Let my trusty spreadsheet try to explain this odd dynamic, using some awfully basic math to highlight the tussle between a property owner and an insurer.

Proper premiums

We all know that many things tied to housing in California are expensive.

So, it might surprise you to know that California’s home insurance rates look relatively affordable when compared with premiums across the U.S.

California had the 37th-highest annual premiums at an average $1,434 a year to cover $360,000 in damages, according to my look at policy price rankings from Nerdwallet, Insurance.com, and Bankrate.

The national median was $1,963. And the highest premiums were found in Middle America where wind and hail pound homes – Oklahoma at $4,766, then Nebraska at $3,985, Kansas at $3,774, Texas at $3,389 and Arkansas at $3,172.

One argument the insurance industry makes to explain their wariness about protecting more California homes is that they don’t feel they’re being adequately compensated for their risks. Remember, insurance premiums are regulated by the state’s Department of Insurance.

Costly construction

Building housing in California isn’t cheap – and that’s a hefty slice of insurance cost.

For starters, the California construction workers who’d fix your home are pricey.

They earn the nation’s fifth-highest annualized average pay of $89,300, according to federal job stats. These jobs pay better only in Massachusetts ($101,200), New Jersey ($90,500), Illinois ($90,100), and New York ($89,700). Nationwide, construction wages run $80,300.

Those paychecks are one reason why California ranked No. 3 among the states with an average construction expense of $188 per square foot, according to my combination of building expense benchmarks from Today’s Homeowner and Forbes. The national median was $149 and only two states were costlier: Hawaii at $206 and Alaska at $189.

On the other hand, the typical home in California is far smaller than the typical American residence. That might offer some savings on a significant repair bill.

The median California house is 1,860 square feet, 37th among the states vs. the 2,014 U.S. norm, says the American Home Size Index. The biggest houses are in Utah at 2,800 square feet and the smallest are in Hawaii at 1,164.

Combine cost and size and you get a rudimentary replacement value for a quasi-typical California home: $349,000. That’s eighth-highest in the nation and far above the nation’s $304,000. The highest was in Utah at $427,000. The low was in Iowa at $213,000.

Now before you scoff at those guestimates, much of a California home’s huge price tag comes from the lofty value of the land it sits on. You still have a lot even if, say, a wildfire burns the home to the ground.

Another wrinkle is the age of housing. Old homes typically required the cost of being brought up to modern construction codes when repaired.

California ranked 16th for the age of housing stock at 45 years vs. 35 nationally, according to the Census Bureau. The oldest housing is in New York at 63. The youngest is in Nevada at 25.

What are the odds?

The owner and the insurer both want the premium to properly reflect the likelihood a housing hazard will damage the property.

And it’s a good bet that the largest perils can be tied to Mother Nature.

California had the fifth-most dangerous conditions, according to my composite of climate-risk scorecards from CoreLogic, WorldPopulationReview, WalletHub, and MoneyGeek. No. 1 was Texas, then Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma. The lowest risk, by the way, was found in Rhode Island, Delaware and Connecticut.

However, this is a broad brush for scoring home insurance’s risks.

Remember two large hazards — flooding and earthquakes — are not protected by a typical California home insurance policy. Plus, home policies also cover losses such as plumbing leaks theft and various legal liabilities.

Bottom line

This math barely scratches the surface of the pricing debate.

Plus, no two owners or insurers will see the California risks the same way. And state insurance regulators have their own views, too.

Look, there are far more questions than answers surrounding California’s home insurance headaches. But there’s an over-arching issue that California will have to figure out: What’s more important, coverage or cost?

Should the regulation err on the side of availability of insurance in a state where owners have to protect considerable real estate values?

Or is the price of protection paramount in a state where housing expenses aggressively stretch many family budgets?

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Officials fear many Southern California residents are about to lose Medi-Cal coverage for missing paperwork

• June 30, 2023

A big yellow envelope has been showing up in the mailboxes of Southern Californians who get their health insurance through Medi-Cal, and if it’s been ignored, those who needed to have their eligibility reviewed starting July 1 are at-risk of losing their coverage.

During the coronavirus pandemic, the annual process of having eligibility “redetermined” for Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid health insurance program for providing free or low-cost coverage for those with limited incomes, was put on hold. People were automatically renewed each year without having to show they still met eligibility requirements.

Nationally, 25 states ahead of California have already started the redetermination process and culling people from their Medicaid programs. An estimated more than 1.5 million people have lost coverage so far, and local health officials worry that many of them were due to procedural reasons that could have been avoided. Now, the review process is back in effect in California starting July 1, and community health centers, health care agencies and providers have been scrambling to ensure their patients are aware of the process they’ll need to go through when their renewal window comes up.

Experts with L.A. Care Health Plan and Orange County’s CalOptima Health estimated 2.7 million people in Los Angeles and 985,000 people in Orange County could be dropped if they miss their window to re-enroll. An estimated 300,000 Inland Empire residents were estimated at risk of losing their Medi-Cal benefits when the Inland Empire Health Plan launched a redetermination campaign earlier this year.

“It feels like we’ve been getting ready for this moment for the last three years since the pandemic started, and the continuous coverage provision was put into place,” Phinney Ahn, director of Medi-Cal for L.A. Care Health Plan said. “Which by the way, we think was actually a really great thing during a pandemic: To make sure that people did not experience any disruptions in their coverage so that they can access care if and when they needed it during a pandemic.”

Ahn said L.A. Care started preparing members 18 months ago for when the continuous coverage provision would end. She said its leadership wanted to raise awareness and not have members panic, instead letting them know way in advance that Medi-Cal members would have to take proactive action to keep their coverage.

“The packet could seem long and cumbersome and confusing,” she said of the paperwork mailed out to each member. “I’ve also recently heard, unfortunately, there are scams out there. People are asking for money to help people renew their Medi-Cal and there’s absolutely no cost to renewing your Medi-Cal.”

To let Medi-Cal beneficiaries know about the renewal process, L.A. Care has taken to social media; called, texted and mailed members the information; mobilized their health promoters and got the information into their community resource centers as well.

The Inland Empire Health Plan, Riverside County’s Department of Public Social Services and San Bernardino County’s Transitional Assistance Department have been working in tandem since April “to share data and coordinate strategic outreach efforts to ensure residents undergoing the Medi-Cal renewal process complete and submit requested information,” officials said when announcing the partnership.

Riverside County officials have connected with local hospitals, clinics and health care providers to reach Medi-Cal members whose coverage could expire.

A common theme of why people aren’t completing their renewal packets, officials said, is they might have moved recently and not updated their address or the packet was too confusing or they thought it was a scam.

Kimberly Graham, director of patient access at AltaMed Health Services, said members mistrusting correspondence is “so common.”

AltaMed serves more than 400,000 people in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Graham said team members who were doing community outreach heard firsthand how members were ignoring renewal notices in fear that it was from scammers who wanted to steal their identity.

“We’ve actually started to kind of re-navigate our efforts to focus on events that are by trusted sources,” Graham said, adding that the health services provider is also utilizing its call center to further reach members. “We’ve sent text messages on behalf of AltaMed, not necessarily focused on the details of re-determination, but saying, ‘Hey, call this number for help.’”

Michael Hunn, CEO at CalOptima Health, said of the 46,000 renewal notices due in July that were sent to Medi-Cal members in Orange County, about 10,600 have not been returned to the Orange County Social Services Agency as of Tuesday.

“Our concern is folks don’t know that they need to fill those out and send them back,” Hunn said, adding that CalOptima’s customer service representatives will be making about 70,000 calls per month to members to ensure they know about the renewal process. “We’re actively reaching out to folks and asking, ‘Is there a reason you’re not returning it?’ ‘Do you still need Medi-Cal?’”

If a Medi-Cal member does miss their renewal date, they have 90 days to fill out their application and reinstate their coverage. If they fail to do so, they are going to need to start their application over again, a lengthy process. Either way they will have a gap in their coverage.

“This is a very challenging process, but we are working hand in hand with our social service agency,” Hunn said. “It is not going to be perfect, but we are working our hearts out to make sure that we show as much dignity and respect as we possibly can to our members. The last thing we want is for somebody to lose their health insurance coverage when they’re entitled to it.”

There will be a lot of people who legitimately are no longer eligible for Medi-Cal, either because they make too much money now or they got a job, officials said.

“If they’re no longer eligible for Medi-Cal, that they can find other coverage options that meet their needs,” Ahn said. “We always encourage people to go to Cover California to see what other coverage options are available to them and we’re always promoting LA Care Covered as a really good option, especially for our former Medi-Cal beneficiaries so that they can have continuity of plan.”

​ Orange County Register 

A.I. makers must create and observe new ‘laws of robotics’

• June 30, 2023

Not long ago, the artificial intelligence (A.I.) bot ChatGPT as a “courtesy” sent me a copy of my abbreviated biography, which it had written.

ChatGPT, developed by the San Francisco firm OpenAI, was wrong on both my birth date and birthplace. It listed the wrong college as my alma mater. I had not won a single award it said I did, but it ignored those I actually won. Yet, it got enough facts right to assure this was no mere phishing expedition, but a version of the new real thing.

Attempts at correction were ignored.

Related: California college professors test out AI in the classroom, even as cheating debate continues

All along, I knew this could be dicey, both in providing information that – had it been used to correct – could have led to identity theft or, worse, directed criminals to my door.

The experience recalled the science fiction stories and novels of Isaac Asimov, who prophetically devised a generally recognized (in Asimov’s fictional future) set of major laws governing intelligent robots.

In his 1942 short story “Runaround,” Asimov first put forward these three laws, which would become staples in his later works:

“The first law is that a robot shall not harm a human, or by inaction allow a human to come to harm. The second law is that a robot shall obey any instruction given to it by a human, and the third law is that a robot shall avoid actions or situations that could cause it to harm itself.”

These fictitious laws were reminiscent of the U.S. Constitution, open to constant re-interpretation: new questions arose on what is harm and whether sentient robots should be condemned to perpetual second-class, servant status.

It took more than 30 years, but eventually others tried to improve on Asimov’s laws. Altogether, four authors proposed more such “laws” between 1974 and 2013.

All sought ways to prevent robots from conspiring to dominate or eliminate the human race.

The same threat was perceived in May by more than 100 technology leaders, corporate CEOs and scientists who warned that “A.I. poses an existential threat to humanity.” Their 22-word statement warned that “Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

President Biden joined in during a California trip, calling for safety regulations on A.I.

As difficult as it has been to get international cooperation against those other serious threats of pandemics and nuclear weapons, no one can assume A.I. will ever be regulated worldwide, the only way to make such rules or laws effective.

The upshot is that a pause – not a permanent halt — in advancement of A.I. is needed right now.

For A.I. has already permeated essentials of human society, used in college admissions, hiring decisions, generating fake literature and art and in police work, plus driving cars and trucks.

Related: Europe, US urged to investigate the dangers of AI technology

An old truism suggests that “Anything we can conceive of is probably occurring right now someplace in the universe.” The A.I. corollary might be that if anyone can imagine an A.I. robot doing something, then someday a robot will do it.

And so, without active prevention someone somewhere will create a machine capable of murdering humans at its own whim. It also means that someday, without regulation, robots able to conspire against human dominance on Earth will be built, maybe by other robots.

Asimov, of course, imagined all this. His novels featured a few renegade robots, but also noble ones like R. Daneel Olivaw, who created and nurtured a (fictitious) benevolent Galactic Empire.

Related: ChatGPT’s responses to suicide, addiction, sexual assault crises raise questions in new study

In part, Asimov reacted to events of his day, which saw some humans exterminate other types of humans on a huge, industrial scale. He witnessed the rise and fall of vicious dictatorships, more despotic than any of today’s.

Postulating that robots would advance to stages far beyond even today’s A.I., he conceived a system where they would co-exist peacefully with humans on a large scale.

But no one is controlling A.I. development now, leaving it free to go in any direction, good or evil. Human survival demands limits on this, as Asimov foresaw. If we don’t demand it today, not even a modern Asimov could predict the possible consequences.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Harvest Crusade returns this weekend, now at Honda Center

• June 30, 2023

There’s nothing like love and music to bring the faithful together.

The Harvest Crusade festival is expected to deliver just that as it returns this weekend, July 1-2, to welcome thousands to the Honda Center in Anaheim for a weekend of worship and performances.

Musical guests such as Chris Tomlin, Phil Wickham, Michael W. Smith, Taya, and Passion will perform live.

Pastor Greg Laurie began holding Harvest Crusade or large-scale public evangelistic events, in 1990. After more than three decades, the event continues to provide people with a space to worship.

During the pandemic, the crusade event was streamed online, as an evangelistic cinematic film called A Rush of Hope. In 2022, the event returned to Angel Stadium and was the biggest since 2019, hosting over 210,000 attendees in person and online.

For the first time, the event will be held in the Honda Center rather than Angel Stadium. Angels spokesperson Marie Garvey told CBS News that the change is due to abnormal weather conditions in California this year.

“Angel Stadium has been host to the Harvest Crusades for nearly 30 years, and has a great relationship with Pastor Laurie and his entire team. Given the timing and the unusually cool and wet weather taking place in California this year, the added foot traffic on the field could significantly impact the playing surface for future baseball games. We look forward to working with the Harvest Crusades to be the Southern California home in the future,” the statement said.

In his online blog, Laurie talked about pivoting online during the pandemic.

“So now we’re pivoting again,” he wrote. “What we’re thinking about this year at the Honda Center, since it’s an enclosed environment, is that we’re going to do our service in the round. It’s much closer, much more intimate, and we’re going to have an immersive worship experience this year.”

Laurie added that the event may return to Angel Stadium in the future.

Doors for the Harvest Crusade weekend will open at 4:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday, and the event starts at 6:00 PM. Admission is free for all and no tickets are required, but parking costs $20 for cars and $40 for buses and motorhomes.

The event will be translated onsite for in-venue audience members in Spanish, Thai, French, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Tamil, Romanian, and American Sign Language.

For more information: crusade.harvest.org

Related links

Pastor Greg Laurie to speak at SoCal Harvest this weekend
Founding pastor Rick Warren appeals ouster of Saddleback Church from Southern Baptist Convention
Harvest Crusade and Pastor Greg Laurie to kick off SoCal Harvest for the 30th year
Pastor Rick Warren delivers final Saddleback Church sermon

​ Orange County Register 

HOA Homefront: Why hiring an association member is a very bad idea

• June 30, 2023

Q: Three of the members of our HOA board are employed directly or through service contracts with the master community company. They hold the top offices including president of the HOA board. It appears to be a conflict of interest to serve both masters. Is this legal or just poor judgment to look improper to the community? — S.F., Mission Viejo.

A: Directors of your HOA who are at the same time being paid for services by the master association are in a no-win position, as they are serving two corporations whose interests are not always identical.

This also creates problems for the master HOA board, as other homeowners wonder why the master HOA is paying some of its members.

Surely in the Mission Viejo area, there are many service providers outside the master HOA membership. It looks bad for both your HOA and the master HOA, which is why I believe HOAs should bend over backward to avoid hiring one of its own.

Q: Our HOA is considering hiring a member to design our remodel. Is this legal or advisable? — R.B., Coronado.

A: Unless your governing documents prohibit hiring members, hiring a member as your HOA’s designer is not illegal. However, it may be very unwise. If the member performs poorly, is the HOA board going to hold that person to the same standard as any other service provider?

If the member’s design services are negligently performed, will the HOA board sue the designer for damages?

If the HOA’s relationship with a service provider is personal as well as professional, it’s not truly an “arm’s length” relationship, and that makes it much harder to keep things strictly professional – potentially harming the HOA’s interests.

No matter how much a member may discount their services, there will always be those HOA members who feel it’s improper to hire homeowners or residents.

There are many designers in the greater San Diego area – can’t your board find someone really good outside of the HOA membership?

Q: We have a small association. The board consists of a president who is the boyfriend of the former president. The new president made the old president “property manager.” No election has been held because they keep election time and ballots secret from everyone else. How does one go about challenging entrenched authority of an HOA? These people have control of the HOA but not by a true vote, many people are fed up and are wanting to know a course of action for this. — J.A., Glendale

A.: For the same reasons as stated above, hiring a homeowner to manage their own community is a bad idea. Good intentions are valueless to the HOA if the manager is not qualified to manage the community.

Even if the homeowner were a credentialled manager, they would still be hopelessly entangled between their conflicting roles as homeowner, manager, and board buddy. Small HOAs usually have an easier time than larger ones in electing boards, so things will change when enough members have had enough of this clubby control of the HOA. When that happens, I hope you can find some good volunteers who will commit to clean governance.

Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. is a Fellow of the College of Community Association Lawyers and Partner of Richardson Ober LLP, a California law firm known for community association advice. Submit column questions to kelly@roattorneys.com. 

​ Orange County Register 

The bizarre revival of the Industrial Welfare Commission

• June 30, 2023

California voters have had the power of referendum since 1911. By collecting a required number of signatures on a petition within a set time frame, voters can immediately force a halt to the implementation of a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. That law then goes on the ballot for voters themselves to approve or reject.

The people’s power of referendum is an important check on the power of lawmakers to impose unpopular measures on an unwilling population. Dealmaking with special interests in the Capitol may result in a law being passed that does not have the support of a majority of Californians, and a referendum is an outlet for voter anger.

So of course, the power of referendum is unpopular in the Capitol.

This year, lawmakers have used the budget process to sabotage a referendum that will appear on the November 2024 ballot. That measure will offer voters the opportunity to decide the fate of Assembly Bill 257, a law passed last year that creates a “Fast Food Council” within the state Department of Industrial Relations. According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “The purpose of the council would be to establish sectorwide minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions related to the health, safety, and welfare of, and supplying the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant workers.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 257 in September, and business interests quickly qualified a referendum. The law is on hold until voters weigh in.

However, the freshly negotiated budget deal between Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders includes a line item providing $3 million to fund the state’s previously defunded Industrial Welfare Commission. The IWC dates back to the early 20th century. It regulated wages and working conditions in different sectors of the economy, issuing orders that in some cases are still in effect. However, in 2004, the commission was defunded to prevent Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from using it to change union-supported work rules.

Now the commission will be resurrected with $3 million of funding, enough for a brazen effort to nullify the voters’ power of referendum over AB 257, the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act.

The funding is conditioned on the Industrial Welfare Commission prioritizing industries in which at least 10% of workers are at or below the federal poverty level. According to the University of California-Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, that includes employees of fast-food restaurants in California.

What a coincidence.

Related Articles

By another coincidence, the commission has until October 2024 to report on its findings, after it investigates wages paid across the relevant employment sectors and determines if they are “inadequate to supply the cost of proper living.” The findings will be released just as ballots for the November election are mailed to every registered voter.

So one way or another, regardless of what voters think about it, wages and working conditions specifically in the fast-food industry in California will be regulated by a state agency, almost certainly causing prices to rise.

California’s political leaders are arrogantly imposing unique mandates on industries they disfavor at the behest of their political supporters, in this case, labor unions that have targeted franchisees, small business owners who have for decades provided entry-level jobs for California residents.

​ Orange County Register 

New California law protects ‘the children’ by destroying free speech

• June 30, 2023

In just about one year – July 1, 2024 – California’s Age Appropriate Design Code (AADC) will come into full effect; that is, if it is not struck down in the courts. If enacted, social media companies and other online platforms will face a compliance and liability nightmare.

California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Act, which passed in 2022, was intended to enforce a premise that on the surface sounds wholly unobjectionable – that those online services which “children are likely to access … consider the best interests of children when designing, developing, and providing that online service, product, or feature.” In practice, the AADC functions by forcing any such website to submit a Data Protection Impact Assessment before offering any new product or service, in which they must identify all “risks of material detriment to children.” 

This is vaguely defined to encompass anything from exposure to “potentially harmful” content to “whether algorithms used by the online product … could harm children.” And “child” is defined as anyone under 18, which would treat near-high school and some high school graduates the same as kindergartners. 

Essentially, California regulators would have the power to force websites to take down whatever content or cease any practices they deem “materially detrimental to the physical health, mental health, or well-being of a child.” Websites are subject to harsh per-instance fines for failing to protect children from harms that the law largely does not define. 

Thus, a law sold as simply protecting childrens’ privacy online quickly turns into something far more comprehensive, which internet law Professor Eric Goldman has accurately called “a trojan horse for comprehensive regulation of Internet services.”  

Much of the text of the AADC derives from a British law of the same name, which California’s bill text explicitly points to for guidance in enforcing its provisions. The trouble, aside from the law’s incredible vagueness of scope, is that the United States  has something the United Kingdom does not – the First Amendment. While U.S. case law agrees that the government has some degree of duty to protect children from certain kinds of explicit content, such as pornography, even children are afforded a wide degree of First-Amendment-protected access to non-obscene speech.

The effect this law would have on websites’ ability to carry otherwise-legal speech led the trade association NetChoice to challenge the AADC on First Amendment grounds, and to seek an injunction that would block its implementation while under court review. Writing in favor of NetChoice’s request, The New York Times emphasized that the AADC would, by design, limit minors’ freedom of expression and access to legal content, restrictions which have repeatedly been found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Importantly, the changes websites would have to make to accommodate the AADC would impact more than just California residents and minors. For one example, although the AADC does not mandate it directly, many sites might feel compelled to verify their users’ age, which would obviously have to apply to every user to determine who the minors are. Age verification online remains a difficult problem, risking users’ privacy or else submitting them to biometric scans, and creates another barrier to accessing speech that may itself be found unconstitutional.

The most perverse incentive of all is that many sites would find it far more cost-effective to simply attempt to ban all users under 18 from using their platforms. This is essentially what happened after the passage of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in 1998, which created such complexity in processing data from minors under 13 that many platforms simply banned them instead. A similar outcome today would be tragic in an era where kids and teens need to develop digital literacy in order to be successful in the workforce. 

Related Articles

Conversely, sites might instead comply by effectively treating every user as if they were a minor, restricting the content that every user has access to accordingly. Neither outcome is ideal.

In the event that California’s AADC survives its legal challenges, there are ways the state’s regulators could at least mitigate its worst effects, starting with providing concise regulatory guidance that gives website operators a greater degree of certainty about how the law will be enforced. Overall, however, the law starts from the wrong premise, as it makes online platforms liable for decisions about the appropriateness of content and services for all minors when, in reality, these questions differ substantially for every parent and child. In spite of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s protestations, it would be a far better outcome for parents, children and internet users in general if California’s AADC were struck down as unconstitutional.

Josh Withrow is a fellow for the technology and innovation policy program at the R Street Institute.

​ Orange County Register 

Supreme Court rejects Biden plan to wipe away $400 billion in student loans

• June 30, 2023

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON — A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce student loans for millions of Americans.

The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, effectively killed the $400 billion plan, announced by President Joe Biden last year, and left borrowers on the hook for repayments that are expected to resume by late summer.

The court held that the administration needs Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program. The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with student loans, known as the HEROES Act, gave Biden the power he claimed.

“Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, joined by the court’s two other liberals, that the majority of the court “overrides the combined judgment of the Legislative and Executive Branches, with the consequence of eliminating loan forgiveness for 43 million Americans.”

See more on key Supreme Court decisions: Southern California educators, leaders split on court’s affirmative action ruling | Court solidifies protections for workers who ask for religious accommodations | Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions, says race cannot be a factor | Court rejects GOP argument in North Carolina case that could have transformed US elections

Loan repayments are expected to resume by late August under a schedule initially set by the administration and included in the agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Payments have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago.

The forgiveness program would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, would have had an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

Twenty-six million people had applied for relief and 43 million would have been eligible, the administration said. The cost was estimated at $400 billion over 30 years.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register