Attorney General Tim Griffin secures temporary restraining order targeting student loans

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin announced a significant legal victory on Thursday after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted a temporary restraining order against the Biden-Harris administration’s latest student debt cancellation effort. This legal move marks yet another successful challenge to the administration’s attempts to unilaterally cancel student loans without congressional support.

The temporary restraining order effectively halts the administration’s most recent push to cancel student debt. Attorney General Griffin tweeted triumphantly about the decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the separation of powers in government. His statement reflected his coalition’s continued commitment to upholding the Constitution and ensuring that the executive branch respects its boundaries.

A Growing Trend of Legal Challenges

This recent legal victory joins a string of similar court rulings, underscoring the legal uncertainty surrounding the administration’s student loan forgiveness plans. In June, a federal judge in Missouri granted an injunction against a portion of the administration’s plan to revise student loan repayment terms. Among the key elements of the plan, the more lenient terms for loan forgiveness were halted, although not the provisions aimed at reducing loan payments.

A Coalition of States Against Unilateral Action

In the latest legal challenge, Arkansas is part of a coalition of states including Missouri, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, and Ohio. These states have collectively charged that the administration lacks the authority to implement major student debt forgiveness measures without congressional approval. The attorney generals involved have consistently emphasized the need for the executive branch to work with Congress rather than unilaterally imposing policy changes.

Griffin’s Message of Limiting Executive Power

Attorney General Griffin’s statement following the court ruling underscored the constitutional implications of the President’s actions. By pointing out the limits of presidential power, Griffin emphasized the administration’s failure to work with Congress to achieve its goals. His bold message to the administration echoes a broader debate on the balance of power in government and the importance of maintaining constitutional limits on executive authority.