乔·拜登总统的政府正在缩减规模他的联邦学生贷款取消计划为了避免法律挑战，包括本周提起的两起诉讼-新的指导方针现在排除了至少数十万最初被告知有资格获得豁免的借款人。
周四，教育部悄悄更新了关于哪些人有资格享受对一些美国人高达2万美元的债务减免计划的指示。(NPR首次报道零钱。)
新的指导意见将那些获得联邦贷款的人排除在外，尽管这些贷款由政府担保，但在技术上是由私人银行处理的。截至周四，这些借款人-珀金斯贷款和联邦家庭教育贷款(FFEL) -不再有资格获得赦免计划。
这一改变是在六个共和党领导的州针对该计划的这一部分提起诉讼的同一天做出的。诉状认为，取消债务将减少管理这些贷款的私人银行的利息收入。
虽然总共约有400万美国人拥有FFEL或珀金斯贷款，但一名政府官员告诉美国广播公司新闻，这些借款人中只有约77万人将受到债务取消政策变化的影响。
根据拜登政府的说法，预计总共有4300万人有资格获得贷款豁免。
在一份回应这一变化的声明中，教育部表示，它打算“尽可能快、尽可能容易地向尽可能多的合格借款人”提供救济，这表明他们指导方针的转变旨在在法律挑战中尽可能多地保护整个项目。
教育部表示，它正在继续“探索其他合法的选择，为私人拥有的FFEL贷款和帕金斯贷款的借款人提供救济，包括FFEL借款人是否可以在不需要整合的情况下获得一次性债务减免。”
然而，仍然会有FFEL和珀金斯的借款人有资格获得减免，因为任何在周四之前将其教育债务合并到联邦直接贷款的人仍然有资格获得该计划——这一细微差别预计将在法庭上提起诉讼。
Students walking to class on the California State University, Northridge campus in Los Angeles.
股票照片/盖蒂图片
学生贷款豁免诉讼
到目前为止，已经有两起针对联邦学生贷款免除计划的诉讼。
第一个是总部位于加州的太平洋法律基金会(Pacific Legal Foundation)周二在印第安纳州宣布的，目前正代表印第安纳州居民兼太平洋法律基金会律师弗兰克·加里森(Frank Garrison)进行辩论，加里森表示，他的贷款被免除将迫使他支付取消金额的州税，否则他就不必支付。
虽然该投诉的是非曲直尚未决定——加里森寻求临时限制令以停止宽恕计划——但该案件的存在表明保守派认为他们已经找到了特定的原告，他们可以在宽恕计划下声称受到伤害起诉权也是如此。
在本周的声明中，太平洋法律基金会表示，其诉讼是对白宫“公然非法”决定的回应，该公司认为这违反了国会的权力。
作为回应，白宫新闻秘书郭佳欣·让-皮埃尔周二辩称，没有人必须获得债务减免，原告可以“选择退出”，而不是被税单所困。
“我们想在这里明确一点:拜登-哈里斯政府学生贷款计划的反对者正试图阻止该计划，因为他们知道该计划将再次为工薪家庭提供急需的救济。任何不想获得债务减免的人都可以选择退出，”她说。
周四，共和党与政府在学生贷款豁免问题上的法律斗争升级，六个共和党领导的州对拜登提起诉讼，试图阻止他的计划。
阿肯色州、爱荷华州、堪萨斯州、密苏里州、内布拉斯加州和南卡罗来纳州的州长声称，拜登不公平地引用了国家紧急状态新冠肺炎疫情，尽管总统已经表示疫情“结束了”
“拜登总统的学生贷款减免计划从根本上来说是不公平的，会伤害到被迫为此买单的美国家庭。此外，行政部门没有单方面的权力来实施全面的学生贷款取消计划，”内布拉斯加州州长皮特·里基茨在一份声明中说。
就白宫而言，它指责共和党人“站在特殊利益集团一边”，而不是政府发言人所说的将促进工人和中产阶级家庭的计划。
Biden administration scales back student loan forgiveness for some, amid lawsuits
President Joe Biden's administration is scaling backhis federal student loan cancellation programto protect against legal challenges,including two suits filed this week-- with new guidelines now excluding at least hundreds of thousands of borrowers initially told they qualified for the forgiveness.
On Thursday, the Department of Education quietly updated its instructions on who qualifies for the debt forgiveness program of up to $20,000 for some Americans. (NPRfirst reportedthe change.)
The new guidance excludes people who took out federal loans that, while they were guaranteed by the government, were technically handled by private banks. As of Thursday, those borrowers -- with Perkins loans and Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) -- can no longer qualify for the forgiveness program.
That change was made the same day as a lawsuit was filed by six Republican-led states targeting that very part of the program. The complaint argued that the debt cancellation would decrease revenue from interest payments for the private banks who manage those loans.
While about 4 million Americans in total have FFEL or Perkins loans, an administration official told ABC News that only about 770,000 of those borrowers will be affected by the change in the debt cancellation policy.
Forty-three million people are expected to qualify overall for the loan forgiveness, according to the Biden administration.
In a statement responding to the change, the Department of Education said it intended to provide relief "to as many eligible borrowers as quickly and easily as possible" -- indicating the shift in their guidance was intended to protect as much of the entire program as possible amid the legal challenges.
The Department of Education said it was continuing to "explore additional legally-available options to provide relief to borrowers with privately owned FFEL loans and Perkins loans, including whether FFEL borrowers could receive one-time debt relief without needing to consolidate."
There will still be FFEL and Perkins borrowers who do qualify for the relief, however, because anyone who had consolidated their education debt into federal direct loans before Thursday will still be eligible for the program -- a nuance that is expected to be litigated in court.
The student loan forgiveness lawsuits
Two lawsuits have so far been filed against the federal student loan forgiveness program.
The first, announced Tuesday in Indiana by the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, is being argued on behalf of Frank Garrison, an Indiana resident and Pacific Legal Foundation attorney who says that his loans being forgiven would force him to pay state taxes on the canceled amount that he otherwise wouldn't have to pay.
While the merits of the complaint have yet to be decided – and as Garrison seeks a temporary restraining order to halt the forgiveness program -- the case's mere existence shows conservatives believe they have found specific plaintiffs who can allege injury under the forgiveness programand so have standing to sue.
In statements this week, Pacific Legal Foundation said its suit was in response to the White House's "flagrantly illegal" decision, which the firm cast as a violation of Congress' authority.
In response, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre argued on Tuesday that no one has to get their debt relieved and that the plaintiff could "choose to opt out" rather than be stuck with a tax bill.
"We want to be really clear here: Opponents of the Biden-Harris administration student loan plan are trying to stop it because they know it will provide much needed, again, relief for working families. Anyone who does not want to get that debt relief can choose to opt out," she said.
On Thursday, in an escalation of the GOP’s emerging legal fight with the administration on student loan forgiveness, six Republican-led states filed suit against Biden in a bid to block his plan.
Governors for the six states -- Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina -- claimed Biden is unfairly citing a national emergency, the COVID-19 pandemic, even as the president has said the pandemic is "over."
“President Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme is fundamentally unfair and would harm the American families forced to pay for it. Additionally, the Executive branch does not have unilateral authority to impose a sweeping student loan cancellation plan,” Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts said in a statement.
The White House, for its part, has accused the Republicans of “standing with special interests” versus a program that an administration spokesman said will boost working- and middle-class families.
