Student-loan borrowers enrolled in Biden's new repayment plan may have gotten a win after a federal judge ruled only 3 states 'just barely' had standing to challenge the plan

• Eleven GOP state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to block the SAVE student-loan repayment plan.

• A district judge in Kansas ruled that only three of those states had standing to sue.

• Even so, the judge said, their case is weak.

Student-loan borrowers enrolled in President Joe Biden's new repayment plan may have just gotten some relief from legal challenges.

In March, 11 Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in Kansas to block the Saving on Valuable Education, or SAVE, income-driven repayment plan, arguing that the plan — which gives borrowers lower monthly payments and a shortened timeline to debt relief — went against the Supreme Court's decision last summer to block Biden's broad debt-cancellation plan.

The states requested that the Kansas district court stop the SAVE plan's implementation. Judge Daniel Crabtree issued his response on June 7, and he said that only three states — South Carolina, Texas, and Alaska — "just barely" had standing to prove the SAVE plan would reduce their states' revenues.

To prove standing, plaintiffs had to show that they'd be injured by the policy, that the injury could be traced back to the defendant, and that the relief they were seeking would address those injuries. Crabtree wrote that the three states' standing was "weaker than the one that prevailed" at the Supreme Court.

Crabtree also said that the other eight plaintiffs' argument that the SAVE plan's relief would undermine their recruiting efforts through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program has not, and will not, hold up in court.

"No court has ever bought into this theory, and this court declines to become the first," he wrote. "These plaintiffs simply have no skin in the game. Their answer to Justice Scalia's colloquial expression of standing — What's it to you? — is this: It's nothing."

Crabtree added that this case is different from Biden v. Nebraska, the case brought before the Supreme Court. In Biden v. Nebraska, he said, the plaintiffs argued that Biden's plan at the time to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for borrowers making under $125,000 a year would harm the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a student-loan company, because it would no longer be able to collect revenue from servicing forgiven loans.

In the case to block SAVE, Crabtree said the states were not arguing they would lose money from servicing loans. They instead argued that SAVE would cost them interest revenue because borrowers would have an incentive to consolidate privately held loans into direct loans, making the federal government their sole lender.

Biden's student-debt-relief efforts have faced a number of legal challenges. In April, another seven GOP attorneys general filed a separate lawsuit to block SAVE, and in October, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit on behalf of conservative groups the Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy to block the Education Department's one-time account adjustments.

Regarding the latter case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in May rejected the groups' appeal to block the account adjustments because their argument that the relief would undermine PSLF recruiting was "unconvincing and illogical."

The Education Department has maintained that its relief efforts are in accordance with the law. It's also trying to implement a broader student-loan-forgiveness plan to replace the one the Supreme Court struck down, which is also likely to result in lawsuits.

Read the original article on Business Insider