TOPEKA, Kan. – Federal judges in Kansas and Missouri together blocked much of a Biden administration student loan on Monday. Payment plan providing a faster path to payoff and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers.
The judges’ rulings prevent the U.S. Department of Education from helping many intended borrowers ease their future loan payment burdens under a rule that takes effect July 1. The decisions do not cancel assistance already provided to borrowers.
In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled in a lawsuit filed by the state attorney general, Kris Kobach, on behalf of his state and 10 others. In his ruling, Crabtree allowed parts of the program that allow students who borrowed $12,000 or less to have the remainder of their loans forgiven if they make payments for 10 years, instead of the standard 25.
But Crabtree said the Department of Education will not be allowed to implement parts of the program intended to help students who had larger loans and could reduce their monthly payments and required repayment period from 25 to 20 years.
In Missouri, U.S. District Judge John Ross’s order applies to different parts of the program than Crabtree’s. His order says the U.S. Department of Education cannot forgive loan balances in the future. He said the department could still reduce monthly payments.
Ross issued a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey on behalf of his state and six others.
Taken together, the two rulings, each by a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, appeared to greatly limit the scope of the Biden administration’s efforts to help borrowers after the U.S. Supreme Court He rejected the Democratic president’s first attempt to obtain a pardon last year. plan. Both judges said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona exceeded the authority granted by Congress in laws related to student loans.
Bailey and Kobach hailed their state judge’s decision as a major legal victory against the Biden administration and argue, as many Republicans do, that forgiving some student loans shifts the cost of repaying them to taxpayers.
“Only Congress has the power over money, not the President,” Bailey said in a statement. “Today’s ruling was a huge victory for the rule of law and for all the Americans who Joe Biden was about to force to pay someone else’s debt.”
The White House said it strongly disagrees with the judges’ rulings and would continue to defend the program and use all available tools to provide relief to students and borrowers.
In a statement, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Biden administration “will never stop fighting for students and borrowers, no matter how many obstacles Republican elected officials and vested interests put in our path.” special”.
In a statement posted on the social media platform student loans.”
“Millions of borrowers now find themselves in limbo as they struggle to understand their rights under the law and the information provided by the government and their student loan companies,” said the group’s executive director, Mike Pierce.
In both lawsuits, the plaintiff states sought to invalidate the entire program, which the Biden administration first available to borrowers in July 2023, and at least 150,000 They have canceled their loans. But the judges noted that lawsuits were not filed until late March in Kansas and early April in Missouri.
“Therefore, the court fails to see how plaintiffs can complain of irreparable harm,” Crabtree wrote in his opinion.
Both orders are preliminary, meaning the injunctions imposed by the judges would remain in effect during the trial of the separate lawsuits. However, to issue a temporary order, each judge had to conclude that the states were likely to prevail at trial.
Kobach called Biden’s plan “unconstitutional” and an affront to “blue-collar workers in Kansas who didn’t go to college.”
There was some irony in Crabtree’s decision: Kansas is no longer a party to the lawsuit Kobach filed. Earlier this month, Crabtree ruled that Kansas and seven other states in the lawsuit (Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska and Utah) could not prove they had been harmed by the new program and dismissed them as plaintiffs.
That left Alaska, South Carolina and Texas, and Crabtree said they could sue because each has a state agency that services student loans.
But Crabtree said reducing monthly payments and shortening the period of payments required to obtain loan forgiveness “exceeds any largesse that Congress has authorized before.”
In the Missouri ruling, Ross said the repayment schedules and “are within the purview” of the department, but that the “plain text” of U.S. law does not give it authority to forgive loans before 25 years of payments.
Missouri also has an agency that provides student loan services. The other states in his lawsuit are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma.
___ This story has been updated to clarify that while the judges’ decisions together block much of the Biden plan, some borrowers could still see their loan repayment burdens eased in the future.
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow Keynote USA Local on Twitter.