Student Loans Must Be Forgiven And Cannot Be Kicked Off

student loans – Four student loan borrowers filed an amended lawsuit arguing the Education Department cannot unlawfully end SAVE or leave REPAYE borrowers stuck—seeking immediate loan forgiveness for those who met SAVE criteria and a halt to the government’s plan to force bor

For borrowers who entered SAVE expecting affordable payments and a path to forgiveness, the timing feels brutal: notices are scheduled to begin in early July, giving people 90 days to move out of the plan—before servicers shift them into a Standard repayment track.

This week. four borrowers tried to stop that momentum by filing an amended complaint against the Education Department and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. They argue the department’s decision to deny key benefits under the SAVE plan—and its predecessor REPAYE—is unlawful. Their demand is straightforward: loans that meet the SAVE criteria should be forgiven. and borrowers who are in the SAVE plan should not be forced into other repayment plans. with the lawsuit specifically pressing for REPAYE instead.

The Education Department is asking the case to be dismissed, saying the termination of SAVE and REPAYE is essentially already set in motion.

The fight is rooted in a long sequence of court battles. SAVE. an income-driven repayment plan established in 2023 under the Biden-Harris administration. was designed to be the most affordable income-driven option available. It offered lower monthly income-based payments than other income-driven repayment programs and included multiple pathways to eventual student loan forgiveness.

SAVE was also a rebrand and update of REPAYE, created in 2015. Borrowers who had been in REPAYE were automatically converted to SAVE, while millions of other borrowers applied to enroll in SAVE from other, more expensive income-driven repayment plans.

But Republican-led states challenged the SAVE plan, arguing it was unlawful overreach. In 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction blocking the program nationwide. As a result. millions of borrowers enrolled in SAVE were placed into involuntary forbearance—pausing payments and. for a time. interest accrual. while also suspending progress toward student loan forgiveness.

That legal standstill did not last. The challenges ended this spring after the Education Department. led by Secretary McMahon. entered into a settlement agreement with the state challengers to terminate both SAVE and REPAYE. The Eighth Circuit ordered the federal district court handling the case to implement the settlement agreement’s terms in March.

Starting in July, the department began moving toward implementation. Borrowers in SAVE are set to be notified that they will have 90 days to move their loans into other repayment plans—or they will be forced into a Standard plan.

The amended lawsuit. filed by four student loan borrowers. concedes that Congress authorized the termination of SAVE in legislation passed last year. That same legislation also phases out other income-driven plans like PAYE and ICR. But the plaintiffs argue the legislation does not require the termination of all three programs until 2028.

Their core position is that eligibility should still mean something: borrowers who qualify should be able to receive the benefits of the program they were enrolled in—particularly student loan forgiveness after reaching the 20- or 25-year threshold. And they argue that borrowers who are not in that forgiveness category should be moved to REPAYE. not pushed out of the repayment ecosystem into other. less affordable plans.

In the amended complaint filed on Tuesday, the plaintiffs accuse the department of acting without proper notice and comment and without addressing borrowers’ reliance interests. They argue the department’s course of action began long before the case involving Missouri v. Trump was resolved.

The filing says the department’s approach amounts to a “shadow repeal” of REPAYE, and contends that the government intends to force plaintiffs and millions of others off REPAYE and onto less affordable repayment plans.

The borrowers also argue the Missouri court’s final judgment did not authorize the department to claw back discharges and buyback credit that had already accrued. They say it did not prohibit the department from honoring the restored REPAYE Final Rule. and did not require the department to move any borrower off REPAYE onto a different plan.

Instead. the complaint says the department is pursuing a “radical set of actions” that it claims do three things at once. The challengers say the government is required to grant immediate discharge to borrowers who satisfied SAVE criteria before vacatur. honor the buyback credit they earned. administer the restored REPAYE Final Rule. and leave borrowers currently in REPAYE enrolled in that plan.

Along with the amended complaint, the challengers filed a request for a preliminary injunction asking the court to temporarily block the Education Department’s efforts to repeal REPAYE or force student loan borrowers out of SAVE.

The department, however, is asking the court to dismiss the challenge. Its motion argues the plaintiffs’ case is procedurally deficient and legally doomed.

“This Court may not overturn the orders of another federal court,” the department wrote in its motion to dismiss. It argued that unless the Eastern District of Missouri overturned its past decision—unlikely unless the Eighth Circuit changes its mind first—the plaintiffs’ theory of the case is legally unenforceable.

The department also argues it lacks power to grant what the borrowers seek. It says a court must apply the law as it exists today. and that the regulations governing SAVE and REPAYE have already been effectively repealed following the Missouri court’s entry of the settlement agreement terms in March.

The department says there is no SAVE Plan Final Rule for the court to enforce. “Plaintiffs seek an injunction to provide prospective relief for an ongoing regulatory violation. but a ‘court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision. ’” the department wrote. “There is no SAVE Plan Final Rule for this Court to enforce, so Plaintiffs’ complaint automatically fails.”.

For borrowers trying to plan day-to-day, the practical question is simple: what happens next?

As of now, the outlook described in the reporting is that the Education Department’s plans to force borrowers out of SAVE are continuing.

In online guidance last updated in March, the department told borrowers that if they are in forbearance because they enrolled in or applied for the SAVE plan, they are required to select a new repayment plan. If they do not select a new plan, the loan servicer will move the loan to a different plan.

The timeline being circulated by advocates also points to early July communications. Protect Borrowers, in a blog post last month, said that communications would begin on July 1, 2026. The organization said once borrowers receive the email. they will have 90 days from the receipt of that email to switch into a different payment plan—meaning borrowers would need to switch starting before late September.

Protect Borrowers added that borrowers do not need to take any steps until they receive the notice from their servicer, and that if a borrower does not switch plans by then, the Education Department would automatically place them in the current standard plan or a new tiered standard plan.

Even with the lawsuit underway. borrowers in SAVE forbearance may want to monitor developments in the ongoing effort to restore REPAYE. But unless there is a significant ruling soon. borrowers are being advised to prepare for having to select a different income-driven repayment plan if they want to keep affordable payments and stay on track toward eventual student loan forgiveness.

SAVE plan student loans loan forgiveness REPAYE Linda McMahon income-driven repayment Education Department lawsuit preliminary injunction forbearance