The Boston judge found the employer-disqualification approach—targeting groups with a “substantial illegal purpose”—to be unlawful, noting it could penalize organizations the administration disfavors.

The ruling criticized the department for offering scant justification for sweeping, rulewide consequences based on concerns about a small number of employers, with wide support for challengers across more than 100 briefs.

A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the Trump-era overhaul of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, ruling the Education Department overstepped its authority and that the changes could implicate First Amendment protections.

The decision also blocked the final rule that would have narrowed PSLF eligibility, delaying implementation of the policy set to take effect soon after its October finalization.

This summary reflects the article as written and does not include external information.

The rule was finalized in October and was poised to take effect imminently before being blocked.

The judge underscored that administrations change with elections but criminal laws do not, warning PSLF cannot be used to enforce un enacted policy preferences.

The rulings vacate the new PSLF rules just before they were to take effect, following lawsuits by more than 20 states, nonprofits, and cities.

The challenges were supported by more than 100 briefs and featured no official support for the administration’s changes, signaling broad opposition.

The decisions arrived just days before the anticipated effective date, as lawsuits from states, nonprofits, and municipalities argued the rule was overbroad and unsupported.

Critics argued the rule relied on broad definitions and targeted activities the administration disagreed with, echoing critiques tied to other executive actions.

The rulings occur amid broader debates over student-loan policy with potential implications for borrowers and public-interest organizations.