WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday overturned the Trump administration’s revamp of a student loan forgiveness program for public service workers, siding with advocates who argued the changes could be used as a political weapon against certain organizations.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, based in Massachusetts, threw out the U.S. Education Department’s revised rules, finding that the agency had exceeded its legal authority and that the changes posed a threat to First Amendment free speech protections. His decision landed just one day before the new regulations were scheduled to take effect.
The ruling stemmed from two separate lawsuits brought by more than 20 states, along with a coalition of nonprofit organizations and cities. The Education Department did not offer a response when asked for comment.
Congress established the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program back in 2007 as a way to draw college graduates into government and nonprofit careers. The program promises to wipe out federal student loan debt for those who spend 10 years working in public service positions.
Last year, the Trump administration moved to tighten eligibility requirements, seeking to cut off the benefit for employees working at organizations deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.”
The proposed changes took aim at nonprofits and government entities that support causes the Trump administration views as contrary to its own priorities.
Under the overhaul, the education secretary would have gained the authority to remove organizations from the program if they were found to be involved in child trafficking, the “chemical castration” of children, illegal immigration, or support for terrorist groups. Notably, the administration’s definition of “chemical castration” extended to the use of hormone therapy or puberty-blocking medications.
Judge Joun concluded that the new rules amounted to the administration trying to impose its own policy beliefs on employers. He also criticized the department for failing to tie its definitions of illegal activity to actual criminal statutes.
“The Department cannot create new criminal prohibitions through rulemaking,” Joun wrote in his decision.
The judge also raised doubts about the department’s justification for the rule changes, pointing to the agency’s own projections that fewer than 10 employers per year would actually be disqualified under the new standards.
“The Department offers no explanation for why a Final Rule with such sweeping consequences is necessary to address the possibility that, at most, ten employers each year may be engaging in illegal activity,” Joun wrote.
The changes would have significantly altered a program that has already erased student loan debt for more than one million Americans. Nonprofit and government organizations argued the overhaul undermined a key incentive that helps draw college graduates to public service careers, which typically offer lower pay than the private sector.
Joun also noted in his ruling that more than 100 supporting legal briefs were submitted on behalf of the groups challenging the new rules — while not a single brief was filed in support of the Trump administration’s position.
