Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights v. McMahon
Case Overview
A group of nonprofit organizations sued the Department of Education over a new rule that would allow the Education secretary to exclude employers from the program if an employer has engaged in activities for "a substantial illegal purpose" including activities related to "aiding and abetting violations of ... federal immigration laws."
The Application
The Department of Education's rule grants the Education secretary discretion to exclude employers engaging in activities with "a substantial illegal purpose" including immigration-related conduct. Plaintiffs contend the rule lacks clear limiting principles, creates impermissible delegation without meaningful standards, and exceeds the secretary's authority under the PSLF statute.
The Conclusion
The case is active in the District Court for the District of Columbia; the court will determine whether the rule is authorized by statute and whether the plaintiffs have been unlawfully excluded from PSLF eligibility.
Case Analysis
Overview
A group of nonprofit organizations sued the Department of Education over a new rule that would allow the Education secretary to exclude employers from the program if an employer has engaged in activities for "a substantial illegal purpose" including activities related to "aiding and abetting violations of ... federal immigration laws."
Issue
Whether the Department of Education has statutory authority under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to exclude employers from the program based on whether those employers have engaged in activities related to aiding and abetting federal immigration law violations.
Rule
The Administrative Procedure Act requires agency action to be set aside if it is arbitrary and capricious or exceeds statutory authority. Statutory delegation to executive agencies must contain meaningful standards that prevent unbridled agency discretion.
Analysis
The Department of Education's rule grants the Education secretary discretion to exclude employers engaging in activities with "a substantial illegal purpose" including immigration-related conduct. Plaintiffs contend the rule lacks clear limiting principles, creates impermissible delegation without meaningful standards, and exceeds the secretary's authority under the PSLF statute.
Conclusion
The case is active in the District Court for the District of Columbia; the court will determine whether the rule is authorized by statute and whether the plaintiffs have been unlawfully excluded from PSLF eligibility.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support