\n
![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/AP24177122483350-e1719302017614.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Federal judges in Kansas and Missouri on Monday together blocked much of a Biden administration student loan\u00a0repayment plan<\/a>\u00a0that provides a faster path to cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers<\/a>.<\/p>\n The judges\u2019 rulings prevent the U.S. Department of Education from helping many of the intended borrowers ease their loan repayment burdens going forward under a rule set to go into effect July 1. The decisions do not cancel assistance already provided to borrowers.<\/p>\n In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled in\u00a0a lawsuit filed by the state\u2019s attorney general,<\/a>\u00a0Kris Kobach, on behalf of his state and 10 others. In his ruling, Crabtree allowed parts of the program that allow students who borrowed $12,000 or less to have the rest of their loans forgiven if they make 10 years\u2019 worth of payments, instead of the standard 25.<\/p>\n But Crabtree said that the Department of Education won\u2019t be allowed to implement parts of the program meant to help students who had larger loans and could have their monthly payments lowered and their required payment period reduced from 25 years to 20 years.<\/p>\n In Missouri, U.S. District Judge John Ross\u2019 order applies to different parts of the program than Crabtree\u2019s. His order says that the U.S. Department of Education cannot forgive loan balances going forward. He said the department still could lower monthly payments.<\/p>\n Ross issued a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey on behalf of his state and six others.<\/p>\n Together, the two rulings, each by a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, appeared to greatly limit the scope of the Biden administration\u2019s efforts to help borrowers after the U.S. Supreme Court last year rejected the Democratic president\u2019s first attempt at a forgiveness plan. Both judges said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona exceeded the authority granted by Congress in laws dealing with students loans.<\/p>\n Bailey and Kobach each hailed the decision from their state\u2019s judge as a major legal victory against the Biden administration and argue, as many Republicans do, that forgiving some students\u2019 loans shifts the cost of repaying them to taxpayers.<\/p>\n \u201cOnly Congress has the power of the purse, not the President,\u201d Bailey said in a statement. \u201cToday\u2019s 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\u2019s debt.\u201d<\/p>\n The White House said it strongly disagrees with the judges\u2019 rulings and would continue to defend the program, and use every available tool to give relief to students and borrowers.<\/p>\n In a statement, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Biden administration \u201cwill never stop fighting for students and borrowers \u2014 no matter how many roadblocks Republican elected officials and special interests put in our way.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement posted on the social media platform X<\/a>, leaders of the Student Borrower Protection Center, which advocates for eliminating student debt, called the decisions \u201cpartisan lawfare\u201d and \u201ca recipe for chaos across the student loan system.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMillions 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,\u201d said the group\u2019s executive director, Mike Pierce.<\/p>\n In both lawsuits, the suing states sought to invalidate the entire program, which the Biden administration\u00a0first made available<\/a>\u00a0to borrowers in July 2023, and\u00a0at least 150,000<\/a>\u00a0have had their loans canceled. But the judges noted that the lawsuits weren\u2019t filed until late March in Kansas and early April in Missouri.<\/p>\n \u201cSo the court doesn\u2019t see how plaintiffs can complain of irreparable harm from them,\u201d Crabtree wrote in his opinion.<\/p>\n Both orders are preliminary, meaning the injunctions imposed by the judges would remain in effect through a trial of the separate lawsuits. However, to issue a temporary order each judge had to conclude that the states were likely to prevail in a trial.<\/p>\n Kobach framed the Biden plan as \u201cunconstitutional\u201d and an affront to \u201cblue collar Kansas workers who didn\u2019t go to college.\u201d<\/p>\n There was some irony in Crabtree\u2019s 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 \u2014 Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Lousiana, Montana, Nebraska and Utah \u2014 couldn\u2019t show that they\u2019d been harmed by the new program and dismissed them as plaintiffs.<\/p>\n That left Alaska, South Carolina and Texas, and Crabtree said they could sue because each has a state agency that services student loans.<\/p>\n But Crabtree said that lowering monthly payments and shortening the period of required payments to earn loan forgiveness \u201coverreach any generosity Congress has authorized before.\u201d<\/p>\n In the Missouri ruling, Ross said repayment schedules and \u201care well within the wheelhouse\u201d of the department but the \u201cplain text\u201d of U.S. law doesn\u2019t give it authority to forgive loans before 25 years of payments.<\/p>\n Missouri also has an agency that services student loans. The other states in its lawsuit are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n