FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contacts
[email protected]
410-576-7009
BALTIMORE, MD – Attorney General Anthony G. Brown announced today that the Trump administration dismissed its appeal of a court decision vacating a U.S. Department of Education rule that would have allowed the administration to strip Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility from employees of government and nonprofit organizations it deems to have a “substantial illegal purpose.”
PSLF is the federal program that forgives the remaining federal student loans of borrowers who work in public service and make 10 years of qualifying payments. As part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, Attorney General Brown sued the Trump administration over the rule in November 2025 and secured a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacating the rule in June 2026. By dropping its appeal of the decision, the Trump administration concedes the case, leaving the district court’s ruling in place and resolving the matter in favor of Maryland and the other plaintiff states.
“The Marylanders who rely on Public Service Loan Forgiveness include the librarians in our children’s schools, the nurses in our hospitals, and the state employees who keep our government and its essential services running,” said Attorney General Brown. “By defeating the unlawful rule, we are ensuring that no one is punished because their employer’s mission does not match the President’s politics.”
Congress created the PSLF in 2007 with bipartisan consensus to encourage college graduates to work in the public sector, where salaries are often lower than jobs in the private sector. PSLF helps nonprofits; the armed forces; and federal, state, and local governments recruit and retain skilled workers who might otherwise be forced to turn to private-sector employment to afford to pay their student loans.
The administration’s rule would have used an ambiguous standard to target certain actions it doesn’t like, including providing legal services to immigrants; providing gender-affirming care to minors; participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; and engaging in civil protest and assembly. In the June 2026 order, the court held that the U.S. Department of Education’s regulations were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, exceeded the agency’s statutory authority, and violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
###