Litigation Overview and Analysis

The plaintiff, a DC-based nonprofit, alleges that cancellation disincentivizes borrowers from seeking PSLF and thus deprives public service nonprofits of potential employees, putting them at a competitive disadvantage compared to other employers.

The plaintiff, an Oregon homeowner with an adjustable-rate mortgage, argues that cancellation will increase rates of inflation and thus, his annual interest expense.

The plaintiff, a Wisconsin-based unincorporated association of about 100 members, alleges that cancellation could cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion and is racially discriminatory.

The plaintiff, a Pell Grant recipient and Indiana resident, alleges that cancellation will cause him and similarly situated borrowers in five other states to suffer state income tax liability that they would otherwise be exempt from under the PSLF program.

Plaintiff, the state of Arizona, argues that cancellation will prevent its OAG from recruiting legal talent as borrowers will no longer need to rely on PSLF (and public service employment) to have their student loan debt forgiven. Further, Arizona alleges that cancellation will harm the state's economy by decreasing income tax revenue; increasing inflation and the cost of borrowing; and increasing the amount of consumer (cancellation-related) fraud state law enforcement will need to prosecute.