InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
States support DOE’s overhaul of IDR plans
On February 13, a coalition of state attorneys general led by California and Massachusetts submitted a letter in support of the Department of Education’s (DOE) proposed changes to income-driven repayment plans (IDR) for federal student loan borrowers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last month the DOE announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) designed to reduce the cost of federal student loan payments. According to the NPRM, the DOE is proposing to amend the regulations governing income-contingent repayment plans by amending the Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plan, and is looking to restructure and rename the repayment plan regulations under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, including combining the Income-Contingent Repayment and the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plans under the umbrella term of IDR plans. The NPRM would ensure that a borrower’s balance would not grow due to accumulation of unpaid interest if the borrower otherwise makes the monthly payments, and would also establish that for individuals who borrow $12,000 or less, loan forgiveness can occur after making the equivalent of 10 years of payments. That period increases by one year for each additional $1,000 that is borrowed.
In their letter, the states expressed support for the DOE’s NPRM, but urged the department to take further steps to support struggling borrowers. The states urged the DOE to expand the scope and reach of the proposed reforms by, among other things, creating a simple path for borrowers in default to enroll in IBR or REPAYE, counting all past forbearance and repayment periods and certain deferment periods towards borrowers’ loan forgiveness, making Parent PLUS loans eligible for REPAYE, and expanding the reach of its reforms to “provide more retroactive relief” to borrowers impacted by widespread servicing errors that prevented them from enrolling in IDR. According to the letter, the DOE should also raise the discretionary income threshold to make debt more manageable for borrowers with the greatest need, eliminate the reverse amortization of IDR loan balances, shorten the period in which borrowers must make payments to receive forgiveness under REPAYE, provide viable repayment options, and automatically enroll delinquent borrowers in IDR plans before they face negative credit reporting and default, among other measures.
States file brief in support of Biden’s student loan debt-relief program
On January 11, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general from Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District Of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in two pending actions concerning challenges to the Department of Education’s student loan debt relief program. At the beginning of December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibits the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s student debt relief plan (covered by InfoBytes here). In a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court deferred the Biden administration’s application to vacate, pending oral argument. Shortly after, the Supreme Court also granted a petition for certiorari in a challenge currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, announcing it will consider whether the respondents (individuals whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the plan) have Article III standing to bring the challenge, as well as whether the Department of Education’s debt relief plan is “statutorily authorized” and “adopted in a procedurally proper manner” (covered by InfoBytes here). Oral arguments in both cases are scheduled for February 28.
The states first pointed out that under the Higher Education Act, Congress gave the Secretary “broad authority both to determine borrowers’ loan repayment obligations and to modify or discharge these obligations in myriad circumstances.” The Secretary was also later granted statutory authority under the HEROES Act to take action in times of national emergency, which includes allowing “the Secretary to ‘waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs’ if the Secretary ‘deems’ such actions ‘necessary’ to ensure that borrowers affected by a national emergency ‘are not placed in a worse position financially’ with respect to their student loans.” The states stressed that while “the magnitude of the national emergency necessitating this relief is unprecedented, the relief offered to borrowers falls squarely within the authority Congress gave the Secretary to address such emergencies and is similar in kind to relief granted pursuant to other important federal student loan policies that have concomitantly advanced our state interests.”
The states went on to explain that the Secretary tailored the limited debt relief using income thresholds to ensure that “the borrowers at greatest risk of pandemic-related defaults receive critical relief, either by eliminating their loan obligations or reducing them to a more manageable level,” thus meeting the express goal of the HEROES Act to “prevent[] affected borrowers from being placed in a worse position because of a national emergency.” The states also stressed that the Secretary reasonably concluded that targeted relief is necessary to address the impending rise in pandemic-related defaults once repayment restarts. The HEROES Act expressly permits the Secretary to “exercise his modification and waiver authority ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to [20 U.S.C. § 1098bb(a)(1)],” the states asserted, noting that “relevant statutory and regulatory provisions related to student loan repayment and cancellation contain no such express limiting language.”
Secretary Miguel Cardona issued the following statement in response to the filing of more than a dozen amicus curiae briefs: “The broad array of organizations and experts—representing diverse communities and different perspectives—supporting our case before the Supreme Court today reflects the strength of our legal positions versus the fundamentally flawed lawsuits aimed at denying millions of working and middle-class borrowers debt relief.” A summary of the briefs can be accessed here.
Education Dept. releases IDR proposal
On January 10, the Department of Education (DOE) announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to reduce the cost of federal student loan payments. According to the DOE, the regulations fulfill President Biden’s plan to provide student debt relief for approximately 40 million borrowers and to make the student loan system more manageable for student borrowers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the three-part debt relief plan was announced in August to provide, among other things, up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the DOE, and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year or less than $250,000 for married couples. Plaintiffs, whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the program, sued the DOE and the DOE secretary claiming the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures and arbitrarily decided the program’s eligibility criteria. Plaintiffs further contended that the DOE secretary does not have the authority under the HEROES Act to implement the program. Specifically, the NPRM would establish that those making less than $30,577 as an individual or a family of four making less than $62,437 would have their monthly payments reduced to $0.
According to the NPRM, the DOE is proposing to amend the regulations governing income-contingent repayment plans by amending the Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plan. The NPRM noted that the DOE is looking to restructure and rename the repayment plan regulations under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, including combining the Income Contingent Repayment (ICR) and the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plans under the umbrella term of IDR plans. The NPRM would ensure that a borrower’s balance would not grow due to accumulation of unpaid interest if the borrowers otherwise make their monthly payments. Additionally, the NPRM would also establish that for individuals who borrow $12,000 or less, loan forgiveness can occur after making the equivalent of 10 years of payments. That period increases by one year for each additional $1,000 that is borrowed. The DOE released a Fact Sheet on increasing college accountability, which clarifies information on identifying the lowest-financial-value programs, protecting students and delivering value through greater accountability, increasing collaboration with accreditors, and building a record of action.
The DOE also released a request for information (RFI) to solicit comments on identifying the best ways to calculate the metrics that may be used to identify low-financial-value programs and inform technical considerations. Finally, the DOE released a Fact Sheet on transforming IDR. Among other things, the Fact Sheet discusses decreasing undergraduate loan payments, stopping unpaid interest accumulation, and lowering the number of monthly payments required to receive forgiveness for borrowers with smaller loan balances. Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
District Court vacates DOE order on student loan servicer’s $22 million repayment
On December 16, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Virginia vacated and remanded the Department of Education’s (DOE) decision that a student loan servicer (plaintiff) had improperly collected $22 million in student loan-related subsidies from 2002 to 2005. According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged that the DOE acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act when it determined that the plaintiff erroneously claimed over $22 million in student loan-related subsidies. The plaintiff contended that in claiming those subsidies, it reasonably relied on two 1993 “Dear Colleague Letters” (DCL) from the DOE authorizing it to collect subsidies for student loans funded in whole or in part by tax-exempt obligations. According to the plaintiff, the DOE issued a new DCL in 2007 which disavowed the guidance in the DOE’s two 1993 DCLs, but nonetheless stated that the DOE would not collect past erroneous subsidies if the plaintiff prospectively followed the DOE’s revised interpretation set forth in the 2007 DCL. Nevertheless, the DOE initiated administrative proceedings seeking over $22 million in past subsidies collected by the plaintiff pursuant to the 1993 DCLs. The DOE’s acting secretary ruled in January 2021 that the plaintiff erred when it claimed those subsidies and must pay it back.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the DOE’s decision in 2021 failed to consider its reliance on the previous policy statements in the 1993 and 2007 letters. However, the DOE argued it was “unreasonable” for the plaintiff to rely on the DCLs, saying that the loan company should have known that the 1993 letters contradicted the Higher Education Act. Siding with the plaintiff, the court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which found that when an agency alters existing policy, it must assess “whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns.” The court further held that it is DOE's job to “weigh the strength of those reliance interests,” and it failed to do so.
Supreme Court agrees to hear second appeal over student debt relief plan
On December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a student debt relief challenge currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the DOJ filed an application on behalf of the Department of Education (DOE) asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas concerning whether the agency’s student debt relief plan violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. In a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court deferred the DOE’s application for a stay, pending oral argument. The Supreme Court said it will treat the application as a “petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment,” and announced a briefing schedule will be established to allow the case to be argued in the February 2023 argument session to resolve the legality of the program. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 28, 2023.
The Supreme Court said it will consider whether the respondents (individuals whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the plan, as covered by InfoBytes here) have Article III standing to bring the challenge. The Supreme Court will also consider whether the DOE’s plan is “statutorily authorized” and “adopted in a procedurally proper manner.”
This is the second case concerning the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. On December 1, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which temporarily prohibits the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the DOE’s student debt relief plan. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
DOE releases post-moratorium collection guidance for guaranty agencies
On December 2, the Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid published guidance informing guaranty agencies (GAs) of their obligations related to Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans that are in default. In August, the DOE implemented its Fresh Start initiative, which establishes guarantor obligations for a one-year period following the pandemic payment pause. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the current pause on student loan repayments, interest, and collection was extended last month as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibits the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s student debt relief plan.
According to the guidance, GAs are required to suspend collection efforts (including involuntary collections) against borrowers who are eligible for the Fresh Start initiative for one year after the pandemic moratorium ends. During this period, GAs may counsel borrowers about the processing of voluntary payments as well as their loan terms and what repayment plans may be available should their loan be removed from default. Loan rehabilitations occurring during the moratorium will not count toward a borrower’s single opportunity to rehabilitate a loan, the guidance explained, adding that beginning February 1, 2023, “GAs will report all defaulted borrowers as current unless their first date of delinquency (FDD) – which is not the same as their default date – is more than seven years ago. If the FDD is more than seven years ago, GAs must delete the borrower’s tradeline.” However, GAs will not be expected to perform retroactive tradeline updates. Following the end of the moratorium, GAs may resume interest rate accruals for all loans provided it is done in accordance with the law and the borrower’s promissory note, in addition to any loan modifications agreed upon by the GA. GAs must also obtain consent under the TCPA when communicating with borrowers, and gather information related to borrowers’ income-driven repayment plans and bankruptcy account details, if applicable.
Supreme Court asked to stay judgment holding that HEROES Act does not authorize the creation of the DOE’s student debt relief plan
Recently, the DOJ filed an application on behalf of the Department of Education (DOE) asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in an action related to whether the agency’s student debt relief plan violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court held that while the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment obligations, the district court stressed that the HEROES Act “does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program,” and, moreover, does not mention loan forgiveness. On December 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the DOE’s motion for stay pending appeal.
In its application, the DOE argued that the plaintiffs never asserted that the debt relief plan exceeded the education secretary’s statutory authority. Instead, the DOE argued, the plaintiffs alleged only that they were improperly denied the opportunity to comment on the plan, stressing that while the district court recognized that the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment obligations, it went further by holding that the plan went beyond the secretary’s authority. “The district court profoundly erred by raising and deciding a claim that respondents did not assert and could not have asserted,” the DOE stressed, further adding that the plaintiffs did not claim that providing debt relief to other borrowers would inflict injury on them. Beyond this, the secretary’s plan “falls squarely within the plain text of his statutory authority,” the DOE asserted. The DOE requested that the Supreme Court stay the district court’s judgment, or in the alternative, defer the application pending oral argument and treat it as a petition for certiorari before judgment, grant the petition, and hear the case along with a second separate action, discussed below, involving a challenge to an injunction that temporarily prohibits the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s student debt relief plan.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, on December 1, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The 8th Circuit held that “the equities strongly favor an injunction considering the irreversible impact the Secretary’s debt forgiveness action would have as compared to the lack of harm an injunction would presently impose,” and pointed to the fact that the collection of student loan payments and the accrual of interest have both been suspended. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The 8th Circuit’s opinion followed a ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which dismissed an action filed by state attorneys general from Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina for lack of Article III standing after concluding that the states—which attempted “to assert a threat of imminent harm in the form of lost tax revenue in the future”— failed to establish imminent and non-speculative harm sufficient to confer standing. In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court deferred the Biden administration’s application to vacate, pending oral argument. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 28, 2023.
DOJ, DOE announce process for discharging federal student loans in bankruptcy
On November 17, the DOJ, in coordination with the Department of Education (DOE), announced a new process for handling cases involving individuals seeking to discharge their federal student loans in bankruptcy. According to the DOJ, the process will leverage DOE data and a new borrower-completed attestation form to assist the government in assessing a borrower’s discharge request. The DOJ also noted that the process “will help ensure consistent treatment of the discharge of federal student loans, reduce the burden on borrowers of pursuing such proceedings and make it easier to identify cases where discharge is appropriate,” and “help borrowers who did not think they could get relief through bankruptcy more easily identify whether they meet the criteria to seek a discharge.” The DOJ and the DOE will review the information provided, apply the factors that courts consider relevant to the undue-hardship inquiry, and determine whether to recommend that the bankruptcy judge discharge the borrower’s student loan debt. The DOJ also distributed guidance outlining the new process to all U.S. Attorneys.
Supreme Court to fast-track review of student debt relief program
On December 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibits the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s student debt relief plan (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here). In a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court deferred the Biden administration’s application to vacate, pending oral argument. The Supreme Court said it will treat the Biden administration’s application as a “petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment,” and announced a briefing schedule will be established to allow the case to be argued in the February 2023 argument session to resolve the legality of the program.
The Biden administration filed its application last month asking the Supreme Court to vacate, or at minimum narrow, the 8th Circuit’s injunction. Among other things, the Biden administration claimed that the 8th Circuit failed to “analyze the merits of the respondents’ claims, much less determine they are likely to succeed” when it granted an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal filed by state attorney generals from Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 8th Circuit determined that “the equities strongly favor an injunction considering the irreversible impact the Secretary’s debt forgiveness action would have as compared to the lack of harm an injunction would presently impose,” and pointed to the fact that the collection of student loan payments and the accrual of interest have both been suspended.
The appellate court’s “erroneous injunction leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo, uncertain about the size of their debt and unable to make financial decisions with an accurate understanding of their future repayment obligations,” the Biden administration said, adding that if the Supreme Court “declines to vacate the injunction, it may wish to construe this application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant the petition, and set the case for expedited briefing and argument this Term to avoid prolonging this uncertainty for the millions of affected borrowers.”
In its application, the Biden administration argued that the universal injunction was overbroad. The application further argued that the states lack standing because the debt relief plan “does not require respondents to do anything, forbid them from doing anything, or harm them in any other way.” Moreover, the Secretary of Education was acting within the bounds of the HEROES Act when he put together the debt relief plan, the application contended. “The COVID-19 pandemic is a ‘national emergency declared by the President of the United States,’” the application said. “Both the Trump and Biden Administrations previously invoked the HEROES Act to categorically suspend payments and interest accrual on all Department-held loans in light of the pandemic.” The application further argued that the states “have not disputed that those actions were lawful,” and that the Secretary of Education “reasonably ‘deem[ed]’ relief ‘necessary to ensure’ that a subset of these affected individuals—namely, those with lower incomes—‘are not placed in a worse position’ in relation to their student-loan obligations ‘because of their status as affected individuals.’”
Meanwhile, on December 1, the 5th Circuit denied the Department of Education’s (DOE) opposed motion for stay pending appeal, following a ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas related to whether the agency’s student debt relief plan violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court determined that while the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment obligations, the court stressed that the HEROES Act “does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program,” and, moreover, does not mention loan forgiveness.
Earlier, on November 22, the Department of Education (DOE) extended the pause on student loan repayments, interest, and collections in an effort to alleviate uncertainty for borrowers. Saying “it would be deeply unfair to ask borrowers to pay a debt that they wouldn’t have to pay,” the DOE stated that payments will resume 60 days after it is allowed to implement the debt relief plan or the litigation is resolved, explaining that this will give the Supreme Court time to resolve the case during its current term. However, if the debt relief plan has not been implemented and litigation has not been resolved by June 30, 2023, borrowers’ payments will resume 60 days after that, the DOE explained.
District Court says university is a financial institution exempt from state privacy law
On November 4, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a defendant university’s motion to dismiss Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act claims (BIPA), ruling that because the defendant participates in the Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid Program, it is a “financial institution” subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and therefore exempt from BIPA. Plaintiff sued the defendant claiming the university used technology to collect biometric identifiers to surveil students taking online exams. According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s use of this technology violated students’ biometric privacy rights because the defendant did not obtain students’ written consent to collect and use that data, failed to disclose what happens with the data after collection, and failed to adhere to BIPA’s retention and destruction requirements.
The court disagreed and dismissed the putative class action. The court explained that the defendant’s direct student lending and participation in the Federal Student Aid Program allows it to qualify as a “financial institution,” defined by the GLBA as “any institution the business of which is engaging in financial activities.” As such, it is expressly exempt from BIPA. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant did not fit within this definition because it is in the business of higher education rather than financial activities because at least five other courts that have also concluded that “institutions of higher education that are significantly engaged in financial activities such as making or administering student loans” qualify for exemption. The court also referred to a 2000 FTC rule issued when the Commission had both enforcement and rulemaking authority under the GLBA. The rule considered colleges and universities to be financial institutions if they “appear to be significantly engaged in lending funds to consumers,” which the court found to be “particularly persuasive because it evidences longstanding, consistent, and well-reasoned interpretation of the statute that it had been tasked to administer.”