TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) – Federal judges in Kansas and Missouri on Monday jointly blocked much of a Biden administration student loan repayment plan that offers a faster path to cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers.
The judges’ rulings prevent the U.S. Department of Education from helping many of the targeted borrowers ease the burden of repaying their loans in the future under a rule that takes effect July 1. The decisions do not cancel relief already provided to borrowers.
In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled in a lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general. Kris Kobach, on behalf of his state and ten others. In his ruling, Crabtree allowed parts of the program that allowed students who borrowed $12,000 or less to have the remainder of their loans forgiven if they made 10 years of payments, instead of the standard 25.
But Crabtree said the Department of Education should not implement parts of the program that are intended to help students who had larger loans and could lower their monthly payments and shorten their required payment term from 25 to 20 years.
In Missouri, U.S. District Judge John Ross’ order applies to parts of the program other than Crabtree’s. His order states that the U.S. Department of Education cannot forgive the loans in the future. He said the department can still reduce monthly payments.
Ross has ruled in a lawsuit filed on behalf of his state and six others by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
Together, the two rulings, each by a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, appeared to sharply limit the scope of the Biden administration’s efforts to help borrowers after the U.S. Supreme Court last year rejected the Democratic president’s first attempt had refused to forgive. plan. Both judges found that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona exceeded the authority granted by Congress in student loan laws.
Bailey and Kobach each called their state judge’s decision a major legal victory against the Biden administration and argue, as many Republicans do, that forgiving some student loans shifts the cost of paying them back to taxpayers.
“Only Congress has the power of the purse strings, not the president,” Bailey said in a statement. “Today’s ruling was a huge victory for the rule of law, and for every American who Joe Biden stood to pay off someone else’s debt.”
The White House said it strongly disagrees with the judges’ rulings and would continue to defend the program and use every tool available 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 roadblocks Republican elected officials and special interests put in our way.”
In a statement on the social media platform
“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 made available to borrowers in July 2023, and at least 150,000 people had their loans canceled. But the justices noted that the lawsuits were not filed until late March in Kansas and early April in Missouri.
“The court therefore fails to see how plaintiffs can complain of irreparable harm they have suffered,” Crabtree wrote in his opinion.
Both orders are preliminary, meaning the orders imposed by the judges will remain in effect through a process of the individual lawsuits. However, to issue a temporary injunction, each judge had to conclude that the states were likely to prevail in a lawsuit.
Kobach described the Biden plan as “unconstitutional” and an insult to “blue-collar Kansas workers 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 — failed to show 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 they both have a state agency that makes student loans.
But Crabtree said lowering monthly payments and shortening the period of required payments to earn loan forgiveness “goes beyond the generosity Congress previously authorized.”
In the Missouri ruling, Ross said the repayment schedules are “well within the department’s wheelhouse,” but the “plain text” of U.S. law does not give the department the authority to forgive loans before 25 years of payments have been made .
Missouri also has an agency that makes student loans. The other states in the lawsuit are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma.
___ This story has been updated to clarify that while the justices’ decisions collectively block much of the Biden plan, some borrowers could still see their loan repayment burden eased in the future.
