The American Bar Association has filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the United States Department of Education to stop the Department’s decision to retroactively refuse to honor loan forgiveness commitments it made under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) to individuals who have dedicated their careers to public service.
The suit, which also includes four individual plaintiffs who were denied eligibility under PSLF, details how the Department of Education changed the eligibility requirement for work that was clearly “public service” after already approving the work and after individuals made decisions and loan repayments based on those approvals.
come play with us at [url=top-law-schools.com]TLS[/url][img]http://mylsn.info/replaced_post.png[/img] Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
- anyriotgirl
- Posts: 8349
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:54 am
have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Last edited by anyriotgirl on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
- LaLiLuLeLo
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.
Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.
Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.
-
- Posts: 31195
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedentLaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.
Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.
- kellyfrost
- Posts: 6362
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:58 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Nebby wrote:I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedentLaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.
Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.
Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?
Last edited by kellyfrost on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 31195
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
What do you mean exactly?kellyfrost wrote:Nebby wrote:I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedentLaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.
Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.
Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- kellyfrost
- Posts: 6362
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:58 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Maybe something a letter more meaningful and detailed. "This case could set interesting precendent." What else are you going to tell us? That water is wet too? Jesus Christ man!Nebby wrote:What do you mean exactly?kellyfrost wrote:Nebby wrote:I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedentLaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.
Still, scummy move by DOE to go back on their previous green light and screw the people who were making payments.
Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?
Last edited by kellyfrost on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- cavalier1138
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
This can't be that complicated to figure out on your own...kellyfrost wrote: Maybe something a letter more meaningful and detailed. "This case could set interesting precendent." What else are you going to tell us? That water is wet too? Jesus Christ man!
If the courts side with the DOE, it could set the tone for future surprises based on the whims of whichever administration is in charge at any given point in time. It could open the door for the DOE to declare all non-governmental PI work to be non-qualifying, and more importantly, it could allow them to retroactively declare 9+ years of work invalid for the program.
And if the court sides with the ABA, there are plenty of gray-area jobs that may suddenly become "public service".
What sort of "meaningful and detailed" analysis do you think anyone can offer without even seeing the complaint?
- kellyfrost
- Posts: 6362
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:58 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
That's better analysis than Nebby provided.cavalier1138 wrote:This can't be that complicated to figure out on your own...kellyfrost wrote: Maybe something a letter more meaningful and detailed. "This case could set interesting precendent." What else are you going to tell us? That water is wet too? Jesus Christ man!
If the courts side with the DOE, it could set the tone for future surprises based on the whims of whichever administration is in charge at any given point in time. It could open the door for the DOE to declare all non-governmental PI work to be non-qualifying, and more importantly, it could allow them to retroactively declare 9+ years of work invalid for the program.
And if the court sides with the ABA, there are plenty of gray-area jobs that may suddenly become "public service".
What sort of "meaningful and detailed" analysis do you think anyone can offer without even seeing the complaint?
Last edited by kellyfrost on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3592
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:55 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
In the DOE's defense, this doesn't disqualify prior qualifying payments correct? You can still count those, you just can't continue to count future ones?
edit: nope that's exactly what they're not doing... i don't know why i thought the opposite
edit: nope that's exactly what they're not doing... i don't know why i thought the opposite
Last edited by GreenEggs on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
- MCFC
- Posts: 9695
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
So I had a pretty slow day earlier this week and actually read the complaint. I'm not sure I agree, at least as it pertains to the work these people were doing.LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.
Though that's admittedly more a gut feeling than any underlying knowledge of the statute or regulations.
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Having read part of the complaint, I can kind of see viewing some of those jobs as more lobbying-ish than providing direct services (not saying that should necessarily disqualify them, but I think there's a distinction). But if they approved the jobs originally going back on that is really crappy.
- LaLiLuLeLo
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.
PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).
I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!
Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.
Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.
My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."
Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.
PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).
I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!
Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.
Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.
My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."
Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Hope they establish some good law in this case. Otherwise this is a hell of a blueprint for Trump's DOE to cannibalize PSLF. The retroactive revocation of certification is particularly chilling.
- XxSpyKEx
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_foLaLiLuLeLo wrote:I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.
PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).
I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!
Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.
Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.
My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."
Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.
- LeDique
- Posts: 13462
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
p. dubious aba fucked up the joint/single-employer test here, not that im clear on what version applies.
- LeDique
- Posts: 13462
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
wait nevermind i went to read the complaint lol why is main aba a party
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- LaLiLuLeLo
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Yeah, I've read contradictory things. Some articles said they were employed by the 501(c)(3) arm. Idk. Still, it would seem their work falls under "public interest law" and the same deference arguments would apply.XxSpyKEx wrote:Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_foLaLiLuLeLo wrote:I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.
PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).
I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!
Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.
Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.
My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."
Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Because without PSLF how can they retain talented lawyers???LeDique wrote:wait nevermind i went to read the complaint lol why is main aba a party
- XxSpyKEx
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am
Re: have we talked about the PSLF lawsuit yet?
Based on what I've read, only attorneys who fall under ABA's 503(c)(6) were denied PSLF. That's also what the news articles on the ABA's own website seems to imply.LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Yeah, I've read contradictory things. Some articles said they were employed by the 501(c)(3) arm. Idk. Still, it would seem their work falls under "public interest law" and the same deference arguments would apply.XxSpyKEx wrote:Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_foLaLiLuLeLo wrote:I read up more on this. My initial impression was wrong.
PSLF requires full time work in public interest law (legal services provided by a public service organization that are funded in whole or in part by a local, State, Federal, or Tribal government) or a public service organization (a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code).
I did not realize that the ABA lawyers were paid and employed under the ABA's 501(c)(3) arm, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education. If this is the case, I have no idea what argument could possibly be made that they are not eligible - it's right there in 34 CFR 685.219!
Even then, it seems the FJE would qualify as "public interest law". I'm assuming they get grants. The work the attorneys were doing in the complaint certainly sound like PI work.
Some articles I'm reading say it's not just the ABA - some local ACLU chapters are being hit with the same denials, which is completely absurd.
My admin law is rusty, but I'm sure the government will make some BS Chevron deference argument, saying that the Secretary is interpreting 20 USC 1087e(m) and courts must give great deference blah blah blah. But two problems: they are taking an inconsistent and contradictory position to their previous interpretations and should be given little deference, and the plain language of the statute defines a public service job as "public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy on behalf of low-income communities at a nonprofit organization)....or at an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of title 26 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such title."
Apologies if this is all in the complaint, I only skimmed the facts to see what kind of legal services they were providing.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login