Biden student debt relief plan blocked again by different judge
Plan to forgive $73 billion in loans blocked pending lawsuit
Ruling extends another judge's temporary block
States say Biden rushed plan to aid Democrats in election
Adds details from decision in paragraphs 6-8 and Missouri Attorney General's comments in paragraphs 9-10
By Nate Raymond and Daniel Wiessner
Oct 3 (Reuters) - AU.S. judge on Thursday temporarily blocked Democratic PresidentJoe Biden's administration from implementing a plan to forgive student loan debt held by millions of Americans.
The ruling by St. Louis-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp handeda victory to six Republican state attorneys general who challenged Biden's plan.
Schelp,an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Biden administration from "mass canceling" student loans and forgiving principal or interest under the plan pending the outcome of the state's lawsuit.
Schelp ruled after anotherjudge on Oct. 2 transferred the litigation from Georgia and removed that state from the case by finding it would not experience any legal harm under the debt relief plan.
The state attorneys general have accused the U.S. Department of Education of overreaching its authority by proposing a regulation that instead should be addressed through legislation in Congress.
The department proposed it in April after two previous plans were blocked by the courts. It would forgive $73 billion in student loan debt held by an estimated 27.6 million borrowers.
Biden campaigned for president in2020 with a pledgeto bring debt relief to millions of Americans who turned to federal student loans to fund their costly higher education.
The lawsuit was filed in Georgia, where U.S. District Judge J. Randal Hall in September issued a temporary block on the plan, though that expired on Oct. 3. Hall is the judge who moved the case to Missouri.
Schelp on Thursday said he agreed with Hall that the relief program should be halted until courts have had a chance to decide whether it is legal.
"Allowing Defendants to eliminate the student loan debt at issue here would prevent this Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court from reviewing this matter on the backend, allowing Defendants’ actions to evade review," Schelp wrote.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, in a statement called the ruling “yet another win for the American people."
"The Court rightfully recognized Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cannot saddle working Americans with Ivy League debt," Bailey said.
The U.S. Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Under the proposed regulation, debt relief would be granted to: people who owe more than they first borrowed due to the interest that has accrued; those who have been paying off loans for at least 20 or 25 years, depending on the circumstances; and borrowers who were eligible for forgiveness under prior programs but never applied.
The rule has not yet been finalized, a point the U.S. Justice Department made in arguing there was no final agency action for a judge to review in the first place.
The states argued that the administration was laying the groundwork to immediately cancel loans once the rule became final before any challenger could sue to stop it. They said that upon publication of the regulation, the Education Department would be able to instruct loan servicers to immediately process the debt forgiveness.
The attorneys general said such action would occur in the run-up to the Nov. 5 presidential election pitting Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, who is vice president under Biden, against Republican rival Trump, and that the administration would seek political credit for the policy.
The White House has called the current student loan system broken and has said debt relief is necessary to ensure that borrowers are not financially burdened by their decision to seek higher education.
Republicans counter that Biden's student loan forgiveness approach amounts to an overreach of authority and an unfair benefit to college-educated borrowers while others receive no such relief.
US judge deals setback to Republican suit against Biden student debt relief nL1N3L016Q
US judge temporarily blocks new Biden student debt relief plan nL1N3KN0XH
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York and Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Will Dunham, Alexia Garamfalvi and David Gregorio
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
