No. 24-2332 ___________________________

State of Missouri; State of Arkansas; State of Florida; State of Georgia; State of North Dakota; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma

Plaintiffs - Appellees

v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Denise L. Carter, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary, United States Department of Education; United States Department of Education 1

Defendants - Appellants

------------------------------

Student Borrower Protection Center; National Consumer Law Center

Amici on Behalf of Appellants

State of Alaska; State of South Carolina; State of Texas; New Civil Liberties Alliance; Mackinac Center for Public Policy; Cato Institute

Amici on Behalf of Appellees ___________________________

No. 24-2351 ___________________________

1 President Donald J. Trump and Acting Secretary of Education Denise L. Carter are substituted as parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). State of Missouri; State of Arkansas; State of Florida; State of Georgia; State of North Dakota; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Denise L. Carter, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary, United States Department of Education; United States Department of Education

Defendants - Appellees

------------------------------

State of Alaska; State of South Carolina; State of Texas; New Civil Liberties Alliance; Mackinac Center for Public Policy; Cato Institute

Amici on Behalf of Appellants ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ____________

Submitted: October 24, 2024 Filed: February 18, 2025 ____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRASZ, Circuit Judge.

This case, like Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355 (2023), concerns the authority of the President and Secretary of Education, under existing law, to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars of loans made to borrowers to finance the cost of obtaining their post-secondary education. The origin of the dispute is a rule

-2- promulgated by the Department of Education to modify a pre-existing income contingent repayment (ICR) plan for federal student loans. This ICR plan, called Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE), altered payment thresholds, stopped interest accrual, and forgave loan balances after as little as ten years of repayment. Seven states challenged the SAVE Rule as exceeding statutory authority given to the Secretary of Education because they claim the Secretary cannot forgive loans through an ICR plan, among other things. The district court concluded they were likely to succeed on this claim and preliminarily enjoined the rule’s early loan forgiveness provisions. The parties filed cross-appeals. The Secretary of Education, Department of Education, and the President (collectively, federal officials) seek vacatur of the preliminary injunction, while the states request we broaden the injunction.

Recognizing the important interests at