Bankruptcy law provides for the reduction or elimination of certain debts, and can provide a timeline for the repayment of nondischargeable debts over time. It also permits individuals and organizations to repay secured debt.
Can six states challenge the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan by arguing that the plan exceeds the Secretary of Education’s authority or is arbitrary and capricious?
This case asks the Supreme Court to consider the legality of the Biden administration's student debt relief plan, which six states have challenged, claiming that the plan exceeds the Secretary of Education’s authority. The Biden administration argues that the six states do not have standing to bring the lawsuit because they do not suffer injuries caused by the student debt relief plan. Further, the Biden administration contends that even if the six states do have standing, the student debt relief plan falls within the statutory power of the Secretary of Education. The six states counter that they can establish standing because the student debt relief plan could cause financial loss to their state-authorized loan entity or reduce state tax revenue. The six states further contend that the student debt relief plan exceeds the statutory authority of the Secretary of Education because the plan is neither necessary nor proportionate to ameliorate the conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for student loan borrowers, state budgets, and the overall economy.
(1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (“Higher Education Act”) grants the Secretary of Education (“Secretary”) the authority to award federal financial aid to eligible students for their postsecondary education. 20 U.S.C.
A creditor may seek to collect an outstanding debt in several ways. However, because of “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors,” (15 U.S.C.
Is it unlawful for a creditor to file an accurate proof of claim for a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy proceeding?
This case provides the Supreme Court with the opportunity to resolve a conflict over the interplay between the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Bankruptcy Code. The parties disagree over whether a creditor may file an accurate proof of claim for a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy proceeding. Petitioner, Midland Funding, LLC (“Midland Funding”) argues that the Bankruptcy Code creates a right to file time-barred claims and that filing such claims does not violate the FDCPA. Midland Funding asserts that filing claims for time-barred debts helps to fulfill the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code, such as collectively addressing all claims against the bankruptcy estate. Respondent, Aleida Johnson, argues alternatively that filing time-barred claims is an unfair, misleading practice that violates the FDCPA and does nothing to further the goals of the bankruptcy process. Johnson contends that creditors file stale claims solely in hopes of taking advantage of malfunctions in the legal process and that these claims waste judicial resources.
In 2014 Respondent, Aleida Johnson, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama. See Johnson v. Midland Funding, 823 F.3d 1334, 1335 (2016). Petitioner, Midland Funding, LLC, had previously purchased Johnson’s $1,879.71 defaulted credit card debt.
