View this email .
American Dental Education Association

Volume 3, No. 52, July 24, 2024
Biden Administration Places SAVE Student Loan Repayment and Forgiveness Plan Enrolled Borrowers in Interest-free Forbearance After Appeals Court Blocks Program in Its Entirety

 

On July 18, U.S. Department of Education (ED) Secretary Miguel Cardona said ED will place all borrowers enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan in an interest-free forbearance while the Biden administration continues to defend the plan in court. The decision was prompted by a recent development in ongoing SAVE plan litigation.

 

In the latest development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit sided with Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R), who requested the Court stop the Biden administration from implementing SAVE amid its ongoing litigation. Missouri had already won a partial injunction from a lower court in June that blocked the U.S. Department of Education Department (ED) from forgiving any loans through the program. Not only did the 8th Circuit affirm the lower court’s injunction, it went further, issuing an blocking the SAVE plan in its entirety.

 

On June 24, U.S. District Judge John A. Ross further loan forgiveness under the SAVE program, siding with Bailey in a lawsuit arguing financial losses from loan forgiveness. Judge Ross questioned whether Congress intended such broad authority for loan repayment plans as outlined in Biden’s program. It was this partial injunction that spurred the appeal to the 8th Circuit.

 

Meanwhile, another legal battle surrounding the SAVE plan continues. Earlier this month, South Carolina, Alaska and Texas urgently the Supreme Court to block Biden’s student debt relief initiatives, filing an emergency application to halt the implementation of a plan aimed at reducing loan payments. The three states argue that the administration's actions under the SAVE plan exceed its authority and ignores prior judicial rulings. They contend that Biden's ED is attempting to cancel $475 billion in student debt unilaterally, bypassing both congressional approval and the Supreme Court's previous decisions.

 

In late June, U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of a key component of the SAVE plan, which would have reduced payments for borrowers with undergraduate and graduate debt starting in July. Judge Crabtree ruled that the Biden administration did not sufficiently demonstrate that Congress authorized this specific repayment plan, which could cost approximately $230 billion over the next decade. The decision follows challenges from several states, with only Alaska, Texas, and South Carolina successfully arguing potential harm to their tax revenues.

 

After Judge Crabtree initially blocked reduced payments for borrowers under the SAVE program, the ED sought relief from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which temporarily lifted the injunction. The temporary lifting of the injunction spurred the South Carolina, Alaska and Texas’ Supreme Court petition. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the petition.

 

15 States Block Implementation of the New Title IX Rule

 

The Biden administration's revised Title IX rule, which extends protections to LGBTQ+ students and staff by including gender identity and sexual orientation in the definition of "sex discrimination," faces significant legal challenges across the country. Recently, two additional federal judges issued temporary injunctions blocking the rule.

 

On July 2, U.S. District Judge John Broomes issued a blocking the rule from taking effect in Alaska, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming and specific school districts. This case was brought by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R), Moms for Liberty, the Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United. The lawsuit challenging the Title IX rule argues that the Biden administration overstepped its authority and violated constitutional principles by expanding the scope of sex discrimination protections beyond what was intended by Congress in the original 1972 law. Plaintiffs also assert that the rule threatens privacy rights, safety and free speech, particularly regarding views on gender and sex.

 

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk also issued a on July 11, barring enforcement of the Title IX rule. Texas argued that the reasoning used in the Bostock v. Clayton County case, which concerned employment law and whose decision prohibited employers from terminating workers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, was not applicable to Title IX. Texas also contested how colleges must address sexual misconduct investigations and adjudications under the new rule, saying that it infringes on the due process rights of the accused.

 

These two decisions add to previous orders from other judges that halted the rule in Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. A total of 15 states are now blocked from implementing the law.

 

The Biden administration is appealing these rulings.

 

Florida Governor Signs Bill Instituting Licensure by Credentials

 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) , on July 1, that creates licensure by endorsement for dentists and dental hygienists who hold an out-of-state license. The bill requires all professions regulated by the state’s Department of Health (DOH) to issue a license by endorsement to any professional regulated by the Department who:

  • Holds an active, unencumbered license issued by another U.S. jurisdiction in a profession with a similar scope of practice as determined by DOH or the appropriate board;
  • Has actively practiced the profession for at least three years during the four-year period immediately preceding the application submission;
  • Has obtained a passing score on a national licensure examination or holds a national certification recognized by the appropriate board;
  • Has not had disciplinary action taken against him or her in the five years preceding the application submission application; and
  • Meets other requirements outlined in the bill.

The bill also authorizes an oversight board to require an applicant to successfully complete a state jurisprudence examination on laws and rules that regulate the applicable profession, if required by the applicable practice act.

 

Prior to the July 1 effective date of this legislation, Florida had no licensure-by-credentials laws or regulations that applied to dentists and dental hygienists.

 

Federal Judge Rules Against Georgia’s Request to Extend Partial Medicaid Expansion

 

A federal judge has that the Biden administration when it rejected the Georgia’s request to extend the state’s partial Medicaid expansion program beyond its September 2025 deadline. In her ruling, Judge Lisa Godbey Wood determined Georgia must follow federal rules if it wishes for the program to be extended, which include a public notice and comment period.

 

The program, known as , was first implemented in 2023, and provides coverage to individuals who earn up to 100% federal poverty level (FPL), instead of 138% as allowed under the Affordable Care Act. Those eligible for the program are also required to work, volunteer or participate in certain educational activity for at least 80 hours per month to maintain eligibility.

 

Georgia has argued that it should be permitted to extend the program because implementation was delayed after the Biden administration revoked the state’s work requirement in 2021, and that the state has not had enough time to demonstrate the program’s ability to be successful. The work requirement was reinstated by Judge Wood in a previous ruling where she stated that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and that it , as the agency failed to explain its decision. In her most recent ruling, Judge Wood stated, “CMS’s prior bad act, however, does not allow Georgia to now skirt the rules and regulations governing time extensions.”

 

Similar and, to date, Georgia is the only state that has been permitted to implement a work requirement. Judge Wood determined that Georgia’s work requirement had differed from the others. She also ruled that CMS’ rejection of the requirement had measured Georgia’s proposal against full Medicaid expansion, rather than measuring the proposal on its own, and that, by doing so, the agency did not consider that rejection of the proposal could result in reduced Medicaid coverage, as Georgia chose not to implement any expansion without the requirement.

 

ADEA Advocacy in Action

This appears weekly in the ADEA Advocate to summarize and provide direct links to recent advocacy actions taken by ADEA. Please let us know what you think and how we might improve its usefulness.

 

Issues and Resources

  • ADEA on teledentistry
  • ADEA on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on U.S. Dental Schools
  • ADEA policy regarding overprescription of antibiotics
  • For a full list of ADEA memos, briefs and letters click .

The is published weekly. Its purpose is to keep ADEA members abreast of federal and state issues and events of interest to the academic dentistry and the dental and research communities.

 

©2024

American Dental Education Association

655 K Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202-289-7201

Website:

twitter
Unsubscribe

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA

ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer

 

Bridgette DeHart, J.D.

ADEA Director of Federal Relations and Advocacy

 

Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.

ADEA Senior Director of State Relations and Advocacy

 

Contact Us:
Higher Logic