The Supreme Court didn't rule anything about the Constitution.
Wut? This was entirely about the separation of powers. As in:
What they ruled was that because this is so much money Congress doesn't have the right to delegate authority.
Right, sort of. That's constitutional issue. The court looks at the matter at hand, and then says, "Nope, what he's trying to do is unconstitutional." Note that the constitution doesn't spell out dollar amounts that make the power to raise and assign the spending of money a legislative activity. The threshold isn't in dollars, it's in statute. If congress doesn't pass a bill supporting a specific type of spending, nobody else gets to. The constitution is structured that way on purpose, and there's no little dollar-dial that pushes the constitution aside when you dial it down from "Medium High" to "Low."
That's why this is an overstep and it's why they're legislating from the bench. Like it or not they just overruled Congress.
How to tell us you haven't actually read the Heroes Act without saying it out loud, right? And that aside, yes, the Judiciary absolutely has the power to overrule congress when congressional activities (legislation, certain kinds of committee actions, etc) don't pass a test of constitutionality. But that's not the case here. Congress didn't do anything unconstitutional, the executive did.
If you don't like the law then repeal the heroes act.
Why? It's fine as is, and has nothing to do with someone from Suburban DC in a dual-income household making $250,000 having a plumber from Idaho work part of his day to pay off some of that prosperous couple's law school debt.
But you don't have the votes to do that so you use the courts instead.
No, Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer didn't have the votes to actually pass legislation aimed at the broader (non-Heroes-Act targeted) audience whose mid-term votes they were looking to buy, so Biden's handlers took a stab at abusing executive power knowing it would still work as a sales pitch for low-information, constitutionally illiterate college students even though it would of course fail scrutiny later. Pelosi, of course, said this out loud in advance, in specific detail. Her own chamber's and party's constitutional lawyers TOLD the Dems this was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, and she said it. Because she knew this is exactly how it would wind up.
Activist Court? Sure, if by "activist," you mean, "acting as the check and balancing power exactly as intended by the founders who wrote the constitution and people of the nation who ratified it." If acting to preserve the separation of powers and keep the power of the purse in congress is "activism," sure, why not, call it that.