JB EmmonsNov 5, 2022

"A #studentloans servicer cited in a lawsuit that temporarily blocked President Biden’s debt #forgiveness plan is distancing itself from one of the claims raised by six Republican-led states challenging the program."

This is a BIG deal for the fulcrum standing issue in Nebraska v. #Biden, the lawsuit currently pending before the #8thCircuit - which is also the lawsuit that has put a temporary pause on the whole program.

#law #LawFedi #legal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/11/02/mohela-student-loan-forgiveness-lawsuit/

Loan company distances itself from GOP-led states’ student debt suit

The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a quasi-state outfit that owns and services some federal student loans, said it had no hand in the legal challenge that is being brought in part on its behalf.

The Washington Post
Show threadJB EmmonsNov 5, 2022

As I recall (don't have the decision in front of me), one of the key aspects of the district court's ruling on Missouri's standing turned on the fact that MOHELA and Missouri are distinct entities, meaning that the state couldn't piggyback on the servicer's interests for standing purposes.

The company's own reassurance that the two are distinct would seem to reinforce that conclusion.

Show threadjsjoshuaNov 5, 2022
@IntlLawGnome You're correct that the court specifically held that the state of Missouri didn't have standing to assert claims with respect to harms allegedly caused to MOHELA. However, MOHELA was never a party to the suit, so I don't see that their confirmation that they weren't behind the suit really matters. Either the state does or doesn't have standing to act on their behalf.
Show threadJB Emmons
@jsjoshua I think it adds further reason to doubt Mo.'s IIF argument as to standing. Again, don't have the opinion before me, but IIRC the district court assumed that MOHELA suffers harm but found that any such harms do not accrue to the state. If MOHELA disclaims any relevant comm'ns with Mo. re: the cancellation, that may undermine Mo.'s basis to assert that the assumed harm is occurring even if it could accrue to Mo. At least I'd assume that's why DOJ wants the #8thCircuit to know about it.
Nov 5, 2022 at 11:57pmWeb
Show threadJB EmmonsNov 5, 2022
@jsjoshua (By contrast, I read the states' response to the DOJ filing as putting the best spin on the MOHELA letter, but not really undermining the DJ's conclusion that MOHELA is not an instrumentality of Mo.)
Show threadjsjoshuaNov 6, 2022
@IntlLawGnome the issue is if the state can bring an action on MOHELA's behalf or if it must be the party to an action. I don't see that MOHELA's intent matters to this question. I do think the letter could be relevant to, for example, a finding of lack of standing because MOHELA has disclaimed having suffered any harm.