A federal judge has temporarily halted one of the Trump administration’s most aggressive moves against the nation’s public service workforce, blocking a Department of Education rule that would have stripped many teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other public servants of their eligibility for student loan forgiveness.
On June 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction preventing the rule from taking effect. In a lengthy decision issued less than a day before the regulation was scheduled to go live, the judge found that the Department likely exceeded the authority Congress gave it and that the rule may run afoul of the First Amendment.
What the rule would have done
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program was created by Congress to cancel the remaining federal student debt of borrowers who spend a decade working in public service and making qualifying payments. It has long been treated as a promise: put in ten years serving your community, and the government clears what is left.
The Department of Education’s rule would have narrowed who counts as a public servant by allowing officials to disqualify borrowers whose employers were deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” Under that standard, the government could have cut off forgiveness for workers at organizations it decided were engaged in activities it disfavored – a sweeping and largely undefined category that critics warned could be wielded against nonprofits, hospitals, and advocacy groups based on the political priorities of whoever holds power.
The court’s reasoning
Judge Joun concluded that the Department likely overstepped its statutory authority. He noted that Congress wrote the definition of a qualifying “public service job” into federal law, and that the Department does not have free rein to rewrite that definition to exclude workers it disapproves of.
The court also flagged serious constitutional concerns. Because the rule could strip benefits from workers based on the perceived viewpoint or mission of their employer, the judge found it may violate the First Amendment’s protections for speech and association. He described the government’s approach as legally deficient on multiple fronts, including that it was arbitrary and capricious.
Because the ruling is a preliminary injunction rather than a final judgment, it does not permanently kill the rule. Instead, it freezes the regulation in place while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. Existing PSLF eligibility rules remain in effect during that time, meaning public servants currently working toward forgiveness are not affected by the blocked rule for now.
Why it matters for public servants
For the millions of Americans who chose lower-paying careers in classrooms, hospitals, fire stations, and nonprofits partly because of the forgiveness promise, the stakes are personal. Many structured a decade of their financial lives around PSLF, staying in qualifying jobs and making steady payments with the understanding that relief would come at the end.
Advocates for borrowers argued that letting the government revoke eligibility based on a vague “illegal purpose” test would have injected uncertainty into a program that workers rely on to plan their futures, and could have chilled employment at organizations doing lawful but politically contested work. The court’s decision, at least temporarily, preserves the program’s existing terms.
What happens next
The ruling is not the end of the fight. The administration is expected to appeal, and the litigation over whether the Department can lawfully narrow PSLF eligibility will continue in the courts. For now, though, the rule is on hold, and the workers it targeted keep the eligibility they were promised.
The decision was reported by outlets including The Washington Post and Reuters.