An Important Update to the SAVE Plan – April 6th Filing

If you saw my recent post a few weeks back, I have been tracking this case fairly closely. I posted that The Save Plan wasn't Dead and read this before you do anything.

Checking the filing website for the case, there was a filing on April 6th which appears to validate my previous post that the DOE email was not only misleading but potentially illegal. Further, there may be relief for those misled by the initial email which was one of my chief concerns in getting the original post out.

As a disclaimer and to be clear and upfront. I am not a lawyer. Nothing here is legal or financial advice. I do given my research experience and adjacent law experience know how to read a document. What I found in this filing is significant enough that borrowers deserve to know about it. All claims are sourced to publicly available court documents cited throughout. As always consult a qualified professional before making any decisions about your loans. I also invite Lawyers on this board to weigh in on their thoughts.

First, what was filed on April 6th:

The four individual borrowers who filed the initial motion to intervene in Missouri v. Trump, Case No. 4:24-cv-00520-JAR, filed their consolidated reply brief responding to the DOJ and the plaintiff states' oppositions. This is Document 113 on the docket filed April 6, 2026. Judge Ross has not yet ruled. Basically a Rebuttal to the DOED's rebuttal. In essence their rebuttal to the DOED indicates that they have every right to file as an intervenor as the case affects them directly, citing case law which support this claim, in addition to filing within an acceptable timeframe. Essentially, you cant make a settlement agreement for us which affects us while not consulting us.

On the DOJ argument that the intervenors filed too late. The reply brief dismantles that argument cleanly. The intervenors' legal interests, specifically their right to loan discharge and forbearance credit, did not exist until February 27th when Judge Ross dismissed the case and the injunction lifted. You cannot intervene to protect interests that have not yet accrued. They filed 14 days after those interests vested. That is not late.

Regarding the Mandate Rule argument, the DOJ argued the district court has no discretion to reconsider because the Eighth Circuit gave a direct order. The rebuttal brief cites binding Eighth Circuit precedent showing district courts retain discretion to reconsider mandates where the prior decision contains clear legal error and creates manifest injustice.

Additionally the Eighth Circuit's two sentence mandate never addressed the Allied Signal analysis, which under binding Eighth Circuit precedent is a required prerequisite before a court can order vacatur rather than remand without vacatur. The intervenors argue that analysis was never conducted and the district court is not only permitted but required to conduct it now.

Page 13 contains a critical piece to the puzzle we have been trying to solve:

Page 13 the intervenors quote directly from paragraph 15 of the settlement agreement between the Trump DOED and the State of Missouri, stating:

"The agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of settling and compromising the claims in this action without further litigation, and shall not be construed as evidence or as admission regarding any issue of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action."

The parties themselves, this is the Trump DOED and Missouri. They signed a settlement agreement explicitly stating it makes no legal finding about whether SAVE was illegal.

The intervenors then state: "So, like the larger matter, the parties would have it both ways, expecting the Court to treat this SAVE Final Rule as illegal while disclaiming that result in their own settlement.

This is not interpretation. This is a direct quote of the DOE's own signed document back at them in a federal court filing. Essentially the DOED want's it cake and eat it too.

Why this matters for the March 31st email we all received:

That DOED email which went out to 7.5 million borrowers stated SAVE was dead and implied a court had ruled it illegal. While the DOED signed a settlement agreement four months earlier explicitly stating no such legal finding was made. Those two things cannot both be true. The DOED knew what paragraph 15 said when they sent that email, misleading the public.

The intervenors also document something that has received almost no coverage. As of March 31st, the same day the DOED sent the Action Required email, the loan servicer portals of two of the four intervenors still showed active SAVE enrollment through November 2028. While a third intervenor's portal showed her repayment plan as the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan ending May 21, 2029. The DOE's own systems contradicted the DOE's own email on the same day it was sent.

I can personally validate this claim as my loan servicer account shows a zero balance while my DOED account shows me in the SAVE plan in administrative forbearance with the 2028 deadline.

Where does this leave us borrowers?

This is the question I have been asked most since the first post and I want to address it carefully without overpromising.

The combination of the settlement disclaimer and the contradictory servicer portal information creates a potential legal theory of detrimental reliance. Borrowers who switched plans in reliance on the March 31st email, believing a court had ruled SAVE illegal, may have done so based on a misrepresentation the DOE knew to be incomplete at best and misleading at worst.

What that means practically is still being developed legally. But organizations like Protect Borrowers and the National Consumer Law Center are exactly the right places to bring this. If you switched plans based on that email I would strongly encourage you to document when you switched, what you relied on, and what your prior plan terms were. That documentation may matter later.

I am not saying relief is guaranteed. I am saying there is a legal theory that exists and the people who litigate these cases need to know about it.

I also recommend you reach out to your local representative and Senator as that is where the work legislation wise in the meanwhile can be done.

If you have not switched plans yet, the advice remains the same. Wait. Your clock has not started. Your servicer has not contacted you. July 1st is when servicers begin issuing individual notices and your 90 day window does not start until you receive yours. Do not act on the March 31st email. Wait for your servicer's written notice.

Where this goes next:

Judge Ross must now rule on the motion to intervene and motion to reconsider. He has before him a filing that quotes the DOE's own settlement agreement back at them demonstrating they disclaimed the very legal conclusion they have been publicizing. That is not a trivial matter for a federal judge to ignore.

The Havens DC case remains active in a separate circuit. The AFT settlement protecting IBR is under court supervision with a status conference May 28th.

I write this as a SAVE plan borrower, but more so as someone who hates seeing people being taken advantage of. To paraphrase Bernie Sanders I know it appears that the government has unlimited amount of power and extraordinary power. The have control of the media, our places of work all facets of our lives. I also know this, If we don't let them divide us up whether it be our skin color, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, religion, level of education or where we were born, we can not only overcome but create a better world for ourselves and for future generations. If we stand together we cannot fail but move forward.

Solidarity Forever