A federal judge on Monday temporarily barred the Education Department from allowing additional loan forgiveness under a key component of President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan.
Judge’s order halted cancellation of loans under income-driven repayment plan known as SAVE after several states sued over the program.
The Biden administration is “preliminarily prohibited from any additional loan forgiveness for borrowers under the Final Rule’s SAVE plan until such time as this Court can decide the case on the merits,” wrote U.S. District Judge John A. Ross.
The SAVE plan came after the Supreme Court last year rejected a broader debt effort by the Biden administration under its pandemic-era relief plan, which aimed to clear up to $20,000 in student debt for about 43 million borrowers. .
The judge also rejected an effort by the Biden administration to dismiss the case, saying the states that brought the suit had standing and were “likely to succeed based on the merits of their argument that the advance loan forgiveness provisions…were enacted in a manner that exceeds the statutory authority of the Secretary”, referring to the Secretary of Education.
The Department of Education did not immediately provide comment Monday night.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, representing one of the seven states that brought the lawsuit, praised the ruling.
“By trying to burden hard-working Missourians with Ivy League debt, Joe Biden is undermining our constitutional framework,” Bailey said in a statement. “Only Congress has the power over the budget, not the president. Today’s decision was a huge victory for the rule of law and for every American that Joe Biden was about to force into paying someone else’s debt.”
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said, “With Independence Day quickly approaching, another court has reminded President Biden that he is not a king. He cannot bypass Congress and unilaterally cancel student loans. He should having learned that from Schoolhouse Rock!”
The other states involved in the lawsuit are Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma.
In the action, the states asked the judge to declare that the program violated the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution.
Ross said other aspects of the program, such as reducing monthly payments and limiting interest accrual, are benefiting borrowers and could continue, adding that the states that sued “have not demonstrated that these provisions harm them.”
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
