Attorney General Mayes and 21 other attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education to stop new limits on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. They argue the changes are unfair and illegal. The PSLF program, created in 2007, helps public workers like teachers and healthcare professionals get their federal student loans forgiven after 10 years of service, according to the Office of Attorney General Mayes.
The contested rule introduced by the Department of Education would enable the agency to outrightly declare certain public employers ineligible for the PSLF, should they be determined to have a "substantial illegal purpose." According to details provided in the lawsuit, this might include any activity or action deemed disfavored by the current administration, ranging from supporting undocumented immigrants to engaging in political protest. The vague language of what constitutes "illegality" is a central point of contention for the attorneys generals, who argue that these restrictions are designed to selectively punish certain organizations and states. "Public service should never be weaponized for political games," Office of Attorney General Mayes stated, a sentiment echoed in the coalition's legal filing.
The implications of this new rule, which is slated to take effect in July 2026, could prove severely disruptive for public sector employment and the access to essential public services. The Office of Attorney General Mayes underline the potential for widespread disqualification of workers from the PSLF program, unintended staffing shortages, and increased operational costs for states. The lawsuit articulates that the PSLF statute inherently guarantees loan forgiveness for full-time workers in qualifying public service without any stipulations allowing for the Department of Education to create ideological exceptions.
The legal motion, supported by the attorneys general of states including New York, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado, asks the court to consider the rule as unlawful, void it, and prohibit the Department of Education from enforcing or implementing it. As described in a press release by the Office of Attorney General Mayes, the "substantial illegal purpose" standard used by the Department is deemed arbitrary and capricious. This, they argue, grants the Department undue power to easily target and exempt agencies in line with fluctuating political preferences. The coalition has received further backing with a group of private plaintiffs and local governments also filing a lawsuit to prevent the implementation of this controversial rule.
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}