**Missouri and Kansas Judges Temporarily Halt Much of President Biden’s Student Debt Forgiveness Plan**
Federal judges in Kansas and Missouri have issued rulings that significantly limit the Biden administration’s student loan repayment plan, which aimed to provide faster paths to loan cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers. The decisions, handed down on Monday, prevent the U.S. Department of Education from implementing key aspects of the plan that were set to go into effect on July 1. However, the rulings do not affect assistance already provided to borrowers.
In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled on a lawsuit filed by the state’s Attorney General, Kris Kobach, representing Kansas and ten other states. Crabtree’s ruling allows parts of the program to proceed, specifically those that enable students who borrowed $12,000 or less to have their remaining loans forgiven after making ten years of payments, as opposed to the standard 25 years. However, Crabtree blocked the Department of Education from implementing provisions designed to help students with larger loans by lowering their monthly payments and reducing the required payment period from 25 years to 20 years.
In Missouri, U.S. District Judge John Ross issued a separate ruling that applies to different parts of the program. Ross’s order prevents the Department of Education from forgiving loan balances going forward, although it still allows for the reduction of monthly payments. This ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey on behalf of his state and six others.
Both judges, appointed by former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, concluded that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona had exceeded the authority granted by Congress in laws related to student loans. These rulings come after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Biden’s initial attempt at a student loan forgiveness plan last year.
Bailey and Kobach celebrated the decisions as significant legal victories against the Biden administration. They, along with many Republicans, argue that forgiving student loans shifts the repayment burden to taxpayers. “Only Congress has the power of the purse, not the President,” Bailey stated. “Today’s ruling was a huge win for the rule of law and for every American who Joe Biden was about to force to pay off someone else’s debt.”
The White House expressed strong disagreement with the judges’ rulings and vowed to continue defending the program. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated, “The Biden administration will never stop fighting for students and borrowers — no matter how many roadblocks Republican elected officials and special interests put in our way.”
The Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group for eliminating student debt, criticized the decisions as “partisan lawfare” and warned of potential chaos in the student loan system. “Millions of borrowers are now in limbo as they struggle to make sense of their rights under the law and the information being provided by the government and their student loan companies,” said the group’s executive director, Mike Pierce.
The lawsuits in both states sought to invalidate the entire program, which the Biden administration first made available to borrowers in July 2023. At least 150,000 borrowers have had their loans canceled under the program. However, the judges noted that the lawsuits were not filed until late March in Kansas and early April in Missouri, questioning the plaintiffs’ claims of irreparable harm.
Both orders are preliminary, meaning the injunctions will remain in effect through the trials of the separate lawsuits. To issue a temporary order, each judge had to conclude that the states were likely to prevail in a trial.
Kobach described the Biden plan as “unconstitutional” and an affront to “blue-collar Kansas workers who didn’t go to college.” Interestingly, Kansas is no longer a party to the lawsuit Kobach filed. Earlier this month, Crabtree ruled that Kansas and seven other states — Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, and Utah — could not show they had been harmed by the new program and dismissed them as plaintiffs. This left Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas, which Crabtree said could sue because each has a state agency that services student loans.
Crabtree argued that lowering monthly payments and shortening the period required for loan forgiveness “overreach any generosity Congress has authorized before.” In Missouri, Ross stated that while repayment schedules are within the Department of Education’s purview, the “plain text” of U.S. law does not grant it the authority to forgive loans before 25 years of payments.
Missouri also has an agency that services student loans. The other states in its lawsuit are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.
The rulings have left many borrowers uncertain about their future. As the legal battles continue, the Biden administration remains committed to finding ways to provide relief to students and borrowers.
Source: Associated Press
