Top Law Schools

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.

LaLiLuLeLo 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 wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo 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.

I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedent

kellyfrost wrote:

Nebby wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo 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.

I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedent

Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?

Nebby wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:

Nebby wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo 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.

I agree on both counts. I feel bad for the people who got screwed. This case could set interesting precedent

Nebby, can you provide us with a little more in-depth legal analysis on the topic?

What do you mean exactly?

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!

cavalier1138 wrote:

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!

This can't be that complicated to figure out on your own...

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?

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:Working for the ABA should have never been PSLF eligible in the first place.

LaLiLuLeLo 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.

XxSpyKEx wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo 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.

Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_fo

LeDique wrote:wait nevermind i went to read the complaint lol why is main aba a party

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

XxSpyKEx wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo 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.

Yeah, but the ABA is a 501(c)(6), according to this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... ce_loan_fo

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.