In this context, the executive branch is literally saying they don’t want to do their job
That seems… tenuous? This strikes me as a traffic-ticket kind of situation where there are multiple equally legal courses of action that the official can choose to apply. If the department is charged with enforcing the terms of a loan contract and that contract contains a cancellation clause, on what basis is the court ruling that invoking cancellation is any different from acceptable actions like invoking a lien?
Those sort of loopholes are what contract law is all about. You can only use loopholes when the justification is that both parties could reasonably assume that was the intent of the words written on the document.
There’s no reading of a student loan document that leads to the conclusion that “this is free money from the government that other people will pay back for you”.
That seems… tenuous? This strikes me as a traffic-ticket kind of situation where there are multiple equally legal courses of action that the official can choose to apply. If the department is charged with enforcing the terms of a loan contract and that contract contains a cancellation clause, on what basis is the court ruling that invoking cancellation is any different from acceptable actions like invoking a lien?
Those sort of loopholes are what contract law is all about. You can only use loopholes when the justification is that both parties could reasonably assume that was the intent of the words written on the document.
There’s no reading of a student loan document that leads to the conclusion that “this is free money from the government that other people will pay back for you”.