Case 2:24-cv-00103-JRH-BKE Document 17 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF
GEORGIA; STATE OF ALABAMAN-
STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF
FLORIDA; STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA; and STATE OF OHIO,
Plaintiffs,
V. CV 224-103
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION; MIGUEL A. CARDONA,
in his official capacity as
Secretary, United States
Department of Education; AND
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his
official capacity as President
of the United States,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for a stay /
preliminary injunction / temporary restraining order C'TRO").
(Doc. 5.) Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs'
motion for TRO.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief. (Doc. 1.) Simultaneously,
they filed the currently pending combined motion for stay.
Case 2:24-cv-00103-JRH-BKE Document 17 Filed 09/05/24 Page 2 of 6
preliminary injunction, and TRO. (Doc. 5.)^ Plaintiffs are
various States seeking emergency relief after uncovering documents
providing that the Secretary of Education (the ''Secretary") is
unlawfully trying to mass cancel hundred of billions of dollars of
student loans and has quietly instructed federal contractors to do
so "immediately," starting as early as September 3, 2024. (Doc.
1, at 1.) Plaintiffs have obtained documents revealing the
Secretary is implementing this forgiveness plan, the Third Mass
Cancellation Rule (the "Rule"), without publication and has been
set on doing so since May. (Doc. 5, at 3.) Plaintiffs represent
the Rule suffers from a "bevy of defects" and attempts to evade
existing injunctions issued for previous plans. (Id. at 4-5.) As
such. Plaintiffs request the Court hastily issue relief against
the Rule in its entirety to prevent the unlawful implementation of
it and to avoid the enormous economic consequences possible if the
Rule takes effect before judicial review. (Id. at 51-54.)
II. DISCUSSION
To obtain a TRO, "a movant must show: (1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer
irreparable injury unless the injunction is issued; (3) that the
1 Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file excess pages for their
memorandum in support of their combined motion. (Doc. 4.) Upon due
consideration. Plaintiffs' request (Doc. 4) is GRANTED, and the Court considers
the entire brief, despite it exceeding the usual 26-page limit imposed by the
Local Rules. L.R. 7.1(a}, S.D. Ga.
Case 2:24-cv-00103-JRH-BKE Document 17 Filed 09/05/24 Page 3 of 6
threatened injury outweighs the harm the [TRO] would inflict on
the non-movant; and (4) that the [TRO] would not be adverse to the
public interest." GeorqiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 38 F. Supp. 3d 1365, 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2014), aff'd, 788
F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015). A TRO "is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries
its burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites." Suntrust
Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F.3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir. 2001)
(citation omitted). TROs "should be restricted to serving their
underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing
irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing,
and no longer." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. Of Teamsters &
Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423,
439 (1974).
The Court finds Plaintiffs have standing and successfully
satisfy the elements for issuance of a TRO. This suit may proceed
"[i]f at least one plaintiff has standing." Biden v. Nebraska,
143 3. Ct. 2355, 2365 (2023) (citation omitted). The Rule harms
Plaintiff State of Missouri through financial injury to its
instrumentality, the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State
of Missouri ("MOHELA"). Id.; (Doc. 5, at 24.) MOHELA is a Missouri
public instrumentality that is paid to service federal student
loans, and for the same reasons the Supreme Court found standing
Case 2:24-cv-00103-JRH-BKE Document 17 Filed 09/05/24 Page 4 of 6
in Biden v. Nebraska, the Court finds Missouri has standing here.
See 143 S. Ct. at 2365-66.
Turning to the TRO elements. Plaintiffs show a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits given the Rule's lack of
statutory authority, and the Secretary's attempt to implement a
rule contrary to normal procedures. This is especially true in
light of the recent rulings across the country striking down
similar federal student loan forgiveness plans.
Next, Plaintiffs show they will suffer irreparable injury.
If the Rule goes into effect. Defendants will unlawfully cancel
billions of dollars in student loans, causing MOHELA and others
similarly situated to lose administrative servicing fees they
would have received from accounts being closed or balances being
reduced. (Doc. 5, at 47-48.) Further, the harm is irreparable
because ''the States cannot turn back the clock on any loans that
have already been forgiven." Missouri v. Biden, No. 24-2332, 2024
WL 3738157, at *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs show the threatened injury outweighs the harm the
TRO would inflict on Defendants. Plaintiffs' harm is imminent and
immediate as outlined above, and Defendants' only potential harm
is a pause in implementing the Rule. The purpose of a TRO is to
maintain the status quo until the Court can reach the final merits
of the suit. Granny Goose Foods, Inc., 415 U.S. at 439. Thus,
Plaintiffs' risk of harm far outweighs the risk to Defendants of
4
Case 2:24-cv-00103-JRH-BKE Document 17 Filed 09/05/24 Page 5 of 6
a temporary pause to maintain the status quo. This ties in with
the fourth element, showing that the TRO would not be adverse to
the public interest because of the constitutional implications of
the Rule, as well as the financial implications of mass loan
forgiveness on American taxpayers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have
shown they are entitled to a TRO. As a TRO is to preserve the
status quo, and this TRO is based on the record as it currently
exists, the determinations made by the Court are not final and may
change after additional facts are presented, the issues of law are
further developed, and the Court has an opportunity to conduct a
more thorough analysis of the legal issues presented.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiffs' motion for TRO (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. Defendants are
TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from implementing the Third Mass
Cancellation Rule. Further, Defendants are RESTRAINED from mass
canceling student loans, forgiving any principal or interest, not
charging borrowers accrued interest, or further implementing any
other actions under the Rule or instructing federal contractors to
take such actions. This Order applies to all of Defendants'
officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons in
active concert or participation with them.
Case 2:24-cv-00103-JRH-BKE Document 17 Filed 09/05/24 Page 6 of 6
Further, the Court has exercised its discretion to determine
that no bond shall be required. This Order shall be EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY and will remain in effect for FOURTEEN DAYS, unless
extended by Order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court has scheduled a hearing
on this matter via videoconference^ for WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18,
2024 at 10:00 A.M. unless the Parties mutually agree to conduct
the hearing in person at the United States District Court,
Courtroom 2 - located at 600 James Brown Boulevard, Augusta, GA
30901. In anticipation of this hearing. Defendants SHALL FILE any
response to Plaintiffs' motion by 5:00 P.M. on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER
10, 2024 and Plaintiffs SHALL FILE any reply by 5:00 P.M. on
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2024.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this day of
September, 2024 at A.M.
HOI^RABLE J. R/NDAL HALL
UNIT^ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2 The Court will provide the Parties with dial-in instructions via email before
the hearing.
