A law firm named Public Goods Practice entered U.S. District Court early on June 23, 2026, and filed a motion that was hardly noticed by the majority of the nation’s major media outlets. A federal judge was asked to prevent the Department of Education from automatically transferring millions of student loan borrowers from the SAVE plan to more costly options as part of the ongoing Havens v. Department of Education case. Additionally, it requested that the court reinstate as a live option REPAYE, the plan that came before SAVE, and that borrowers like the named plaintiff enrolled in years before Biden ever introduced SAVE. This filing could be the most significant event of the year for the approximately seven million people who are quietly sitting in SAVE forbearance as the July 1st deadline draws near. Furthermore, very few people were discussing it.
Even if you don’t have a law degree, you should take the legal argument at the heart of all of this seriously. Modifications to the REPAYE final rule served as the foundation for SAVE. The plaintiffs contend that only the SAVE amendments, which had been a legitimate federal regulation since 2015 and had been created under a different president and through a full rulemaking process, died legally when a federal judge invalidated them back in March. According to the filing, the Department of Education has been acting as though REPAYE doesn’t exist, refusing to process payments under it, refusing to enroll borrowers, and essentially erasing it through administrative actions rather than any legal justification. This is referred to by the plaintiffs as a “shadow repeal.” It’s difficult to argue that this pointed phrase doesn’t fit.
People in this situation frequently revisit a specific cruelty that is ingrained in the timeline. During the Biden administration, a large number of borrowers who were automatically transferred from REPAYE to SAVE never requested to change. After enrolling in REPAYE and making payments toward a 20-year forgiveness window, they suddenly found themselves on SAVE without having taken any action. Old IBR, which is currently the most popular option for borrowers with loans from before 2007, has a 25-year forgiveness path, whereas REPAYE had a 20-year path. There is no rounding error in five years. Being informed that the tunnel has just gotten longer is not only frustrating but also financially significant for someone who has spent the better part of ten years looking forward to the end of the tunnel.
The same day the motion was filed, Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued a minute order, which is not insignificant. The borrower’s response is due by July 8th, the Department of Education has until July 1st to submit its response, and a possible hearing is set for the week of July 13th. Courts don’t always react this fast. The judge may have been aware of the urgency of the situation and wanted to make sure that at least a legal procedure was in place before millions of people were forcibly rearranged. It’s also possible that the order simply represents standard case management. However, any indication of urgency feels important in litigation that has been proceeding for years at the speed of cold syrup.
The Havens filing is especially intriguing because of the irreparable harm argument on page 24 of the brief. The American Rescue Plan’s clause stating that loan discharges made before January 1st, 2026, are not taxable events is cited by the plaintiffs. The legal uncertainty brought about by the SAVE battle has forced borrowers whose forgiveness was near—some within two years—beyond that time frame. On forgiven amounts that would have been completely tax-free under a different timeline, those individuals now face possible tax repercussions. That isn’t abstract harm. On a tax return, that is a number.
The preliminary injunction’s approval is still up in the air. By July 1st, the Department of Education will present its case, and the judge may decide that a hearing is not required. Complicating matters further is the larger legislative picture. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, Congress has already ordered the elimination of PAYE and REPAYE by July 2028. The plan would not be permanently restored if this motion were to be granted. At best, it would buy borrowers some time and possibly give them more options while the administration follows the legal requirements for proper rulemaking. Depending on how far away their own date of forgiveness is, seven million people watching this from the outside may or may not find that significant.
The general perception among borrowers that the rules of this specific game are constantly changing after they have placed their bets is more difficult to dispel. Individuals capitalized interest to gain access to plans, signed enrollment documents, and planned their finances around decades-long repayment schedules. The claim that a federal regulation that underwent full rulemaking can be effectively repealed by a settlement between the Department of Education and state plaintiffs in a single lawsuit is the kind of legal theory that probably sounds reasonable in a government office but sounds outrageous everywhere else. It seems that Public Goods Practice doesn’t think it can stand up in court. Soon enough, we’ll find out.
