Court Dismisses Challenge To Key Student Loan Forgiveness Plan, Allowing Debt Relief To ProceedLast month, the Education Department approved nearly $40 billion in student loan forgiveness under a temporary initiative called the IDR Account Adjustment. This program gives the Education Department the authority to credit borrowers with time toward 20- or 25-year student loan forgiveness under income-driven repayment programs, even for borrowers not currently enrolled in that kind of repayment plan. IDR allows borrowers to repay their loans in accordance with their income and family size, with any remaining balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years.
Earlier this month, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Cato Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy to block student loan forgiveness under the IDR Account Adjustment. The same conservative groups had filed legal challenges seeking to stop other Biden administration student debt initiatives. The groups argued that the IDR Account Adjustment was illegal and should be stopped.
The judge ruled "Nope, you don't have standing."
But on Monday, a federal court dismissed the suit, concluding that the Plaintiffs do not have standing. Standing is the concept that an entity seeking remedies in federal court must demonstrate a concrete injury directly tied to the challenged rule or program. In this case, the groups argued that the IDR Account Adjustment would harm their interests as nonprofit organizations by reducing the effectiveness of the PSLF program as a recruiting and retention tool.
But the Court disagreed. “Plaintiffs have not shown an individualized, concrete, and particularized injury-in fact, so they do not have Article III standing,” reads the decision. “Even if any of Plaintiffs’ hypothetical injuries were sufficiently concrete and particularized for Article III standing purposes, Plaintiffs have not shown that the Adjustment caused their injury. Any of the hypothetical injuries Plaintiffs allege would be caused by Plaintiffs’ own employees or prospective employees, not the Adjustment. Thus, there is no causation sufficient for Article III standing.”
Did you get the "hypothetical injuries" part? Hypothetical injuries is exactly what the SCOTUS ruled on in June 2023 with the Christian Web Designer turning down a gay couple to do their wedding website. There was no such couple. The SCOTUS ruled on a hypothetical.
So these Koch Bros aholes at the CATO Instuitute just tried to do the same thing - have a judge rule on a hypothetical injury. Prior to the Rwinger ruling on a hypothermal injury in June 2023 that had never been done before - injuries have always been based on real people.
I'm glad that the judge saw through this Rwing bullcrap.
I'm sure these Rwing aholes thought they can just hypothetical injury themselves all over the courts and get their way. Nope!
