CASE NO.

22-3179

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as the President of the
United States of America, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri
The Honorable District Court Judge Henry E. Autrey
Case No. 4:22-cv-1040-HEA

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

ERIC S. SCHMITT DOUGLAS J. PETERSON

Attorney General of Missouri Attorney General of Nebraska
D. JOHN SAUER JAMES A. CAMPBELL
Solicitor General of Missouri Solicitor General of Nebraska
MICHAEL E. TALENT CHRISTIAN EDMONDS
Deputy Solicitor General of Missouri Assistant Solicitor General of
MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL’S Nebraska
OFFICE OFFICE OF THE NEBRASKA
Post Office Box 899 ATTORNEY GENERAL
Jefferson City, MO 65102 2115 State Capitol
(314) 340-4869 Lincoln, NE 68509
[email protected] (402) 471-2682
[email protected]

Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 1

I. The States have a strong likelihood of success on appeal. .............. 1

A. The States have standing. ...................................................... 1

1. Missouri has standing. ................................................... 1

2. The direct tax losses create standing. ........................... 4

3. The consolidation harms create standing. .................... 5

4. The States’ sovereign and quasi-sovereign inter-

ests create standing. ...................................................... 6

B. The States are likely to prevail on their APA exceeding-

authority claim. ....................................................................... 7

1. The major-questions doctrine applies............................ 7

2. No clear congressional authorization exists. ................. 8

C. The States are likely to prevail on their APA arbitrary-

and-capricious claim. ............................................................ 10

II. The remaining equitable factors favor the States. ........................ 11

III. The Court should enjoin the entire Cancellation program. .......... 12

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 13

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................. 17

i
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
 INTRODUCTION

The Department barely defends the district court’s standing

analysis. It apparently realizes that the States have standing, so the

Court will reach the merits. Once there, the case isn’t close. The Depart-

ment’s contrived reasons for rejecting the major-questions doctrine do not

override the clear evidence confirming that it applies. And the agency’s

baseless reading of the HEROES Act places practically no limits on the

Secretary’s power to discharge debt during or after national emergencies.

The Court should enjoin this clearly unauthorized agency action.

ARGUMENT

I. The States have a strong likelihood of success on appeal.

A. The States have standing.

1. Missouri has standing.

The Department wisely abandons the district court’s sovereign-

immunity-based analysis because those principles do not govern standing

and this Court’s caselaw indicates that Missouri entities like MOHELA

are likely arms of the State. See Pub. Sch. Ret. Sys. of Mo. v. State St.

Bank & Tr. Co., 640 F.3d 821, 826–30 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that a

1
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
similarly constituted Missouri entity is an arm of the State despite its

authority “to sue and be sued”).

The Department instead insists (at 8) that “financial harms to

MOHELA” do not affect Missouri. But stripping MOHELA of revenue

harms Missouri’s interests in many ways. It limits MOHELA’s ability to

contribute to the Missouri Department of Higher Education and Work-

force Development’s financial aid programs. See MOHELA FY 2022

Financial Statement at 9–10, 19, https://tinyurl.com/4chp295x. It also

undermines MOHELA’s ability to pay the $105.1 million it owes to the

State Treasury’s Lewis and Clark Discovery Fund, id. at 20, which

supports “capital projects” at Missouri’s “public colleges and univer-

sities,” Mo. Rev. Stat. §173.392.2. And it hinders MOHELA in carrying

out its “essential public function” of ensuring that Missouri “students

have access to student loans.” §173.360.

Because MOHELA is a state entity, helps fund state programs, and

performs essential public functions for the State, Missouri has numerous

interests in MOHELA’s financial health. State law authorizes the Miss-

ouri Attorney General to sue “in the name and on the behalf of the state

… to protect” these “interests.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 27.060; see Missouri ex

2
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
rel. Hawley v. Pilot Travel Ctr., 558 S.W.3d 22, 30 (Mo. banc 2018) (per-

mitting suit under § 27.060 to vindicate “the legislature’s statutory pur-

poses”). Other cases considering similar state laws and theories of injury

have allowed States to sue for harms to their constituent entities. E.g.,

Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U.S. 368, 370–71 (1953); Alaska v. Chevron Chem.

Co., 669 F.2d 1299, 1301–02 (9th Cir. 1982). Missouri can do the same

here.

The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) does not require Missouri to file

this case in the Court of Federal Claims. Contra Opp’n 9. Missouri is not

alleging a breach of contract but challenging a new agency rule under the

APA. “[T]he proper method” to “challenge the validity of a regulation”—

even one affecting federal contracting—“is to bring an action in federal

district court under the [APA].” Southfork Sys., Inc. v. United States, 141

F.3d 1124, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Court of Federal Claims “does not

have jurisdiction to review the validity of regulations pursuant to the

[APA].” Boeing Co. v. United States, --- Fed. Cl. ----, 2022 WL 4364180,

at *4 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 21, 2022) (collecting cases and distinguishing the

Department’s cited caselaw).

3
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
 2. The direct tax losses create standing.

The “causal chain” that the Department identifies (at 11) for the

States’ tax harms is not “attenuated” but clear and inevitable. First, the

definition of federal and state taxable income is established by law. See

Mot. 11–12. Second, federal law provides that student loans will be dis-

charged in upcoming years. E.g., 34 C.F.R. § 685.221(f ) (directing forgive-

ness for certain loans). Third, if the Cancellation occurs, there will be

fewer future loan discharges for the States to tax. That chain is far more

direct than the standing theories the Supreme Court and others have

accepted in census lawsuits. E.g., Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S.

Ct. 2551, 2565–66 (2019); Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771 F.2d 347, 353–

54 (8th Cir. 1985) (discussing Carey v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d 834, 838 (2d

Cir. 1980) (per curiam)).

Nor does the Department’s argument (at 12) that the States’ tax

injuries are “self-inflicted” defeat standing. “Courts regularly entertain

actions brought by states … that face economic injury, even though [they]

theoretically could avoid the injury by enacting new legislation.” Cali-

fornia v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 574 (9th Cir. 2018). Pennsylvania v. New

Jersey, 426 U.S. 660 (1976), on which the Department relies, is

4
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
inapposite. First, Pennsylvania did not sue “in response to a significant

change in the defendants’ policies,” but the States here did, proving their

“injury is not self-inflicted.” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 158

(5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 579 U.S. 547 (2016).

Second, Pennsylvania “could have achieved [its] policy goal in myriad

ways,” while the States here would have been forced to “surrender[]” their

“permissible policy goal” of linking state and federal taxable income. See

id. at 158–59 & n.65. Because the Cancellation directly reduces the

amount of debt discharge available to tax, this case mirrors Wyoming v.

Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 447–48 (1992)—not Pennsylvania—and the

States have standing.

3. The consolidation harms create standing.

The Department dismisses the voluntary-cessation exception to

mootness (at 10) because the agency allegedly started to change its rule

on FFEL consolidation the night before this case began. But what

matters is when reviewable agency action occurs—not when internal

agency discussions happen. See Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 2528, 2545

(2022) (rejecting the idea that agency action occurs “apart from” imple-

mentation). Reviewable action occurred here when the website changed

5
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
on September 29 or the HEROES Act waiver was published on October

12. See R. Doc. 37, at 39–40 (stating the Department’s view that “the

formal act … authoriz[ing] the forgiveness” was “the publication”).

Because those events happened after this suit began, mootness (not

standing) rules apply. See Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008)

(standing focuses on “when the suit was filed”). Moreover, the

Department doesn’t deny that “an immediate injunction preventing the

[agency] from discharging debt preserves the chance for a permanent

injunction remedying some of the consolidation harms.” Mot. 15. Thus,

a current, redressable controversy remains over the consolidation harms.

4. The States’ sovereign and quasi-sovereign inter-

ests create standing.

The Department argues at (10–11) that the States lack parens

patriae standing against the federal government. That bar applies only

to States’ suits brought “purely on behalf of their own citizens’ interests.”

Kentucky v. Biden, 23 F.4th 585, 596 (6th Cir. 2022). Here, the States

rely on sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests that do not rest on purely

private interests, see Mot. 16, and thus they have standing. See Mass-

achusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 520 n.17 (2007); Kentucky, 23 F.4th at

598–99 (gathering cases).

6
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
 B. The States are likely to prevail on their APA exceeding-
authority claim.

1. The major-questions doctrine applies.

The Department’s silence on key major-questions factors confirms

the doctrine’s application. The agency conceded below that this is “a case

of economic and political significance,” R. Doc. 27, at 41, and it doesn’t

dispute that Congress has “conspicuously and repeatedly declined to

enact” legislation achieving what the Cancellation would, West Vir-

ginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610 (2022). These factors suffice because

courts “presume that Congress does not delegate its authority to settle or

amend major social and economic policy decisions.” Id. at 2613.

The Department seeks to dismiss the major-questions doctrine (at

18) because this case involves federal services rather than “‘regulatory

authority’ over private parties.” But courts have applied the doctrine to

the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal contractors—entities that

provide federal services. E.g., Kentucky, 23 F.4th at 606–08; Georgia v.

President of the U.S., 46 F.4th 1283, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2022).

The Department also contends (at 19) that the Cancellation is not

an “unheralded power’” under the HEROES Act. Yet nowhere does the

Department claim that the Act has ever been used to discharge debt.

7
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
Indeed, the Department argues (at 18) that the alleged harm it seeks to

address through the Cancellation occurs after every emergency-induced

payment pause, but the agency has never implemented anything like the

Cancellation. Rather than cite that Act, the Department says that it has

used a different provision in the Higher Education Act (HEA)—20 U.S.C.

§1082(a)(6)—to cancel debt. But the lone example of debt discharged

under that statute involves borrowers who attended a specific association

of schools—a targeted action that hardly resembles the global Can-

cellation.

Nor does the section of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) “mak-

ing student-loan discharges tax-free” until 2025 mean that Congress

endorsed this use of the HEROES Act. Contra Opp’n 20. That ARPA

provision exempts a broad category of debt discharges (not just the fed-

erally held debt at issue here) and makes no reference to the HEROES

Act. See Pub. L. 117-2, §9675, 135 Stat. 4, 185–86 (Mar. 11, 2021).

2. No clear congressional authorization exists.

The Department does not deny that the Cancellation “seeks to place

[borrowers] in a better position,” rather than simply preventing them

8
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
“from slipping into a worse position.” Mot. 19. This alone proves that the

Department has exceeded its statutory authority.

The Department advocates for a breathtakingly broad reading of

the HEROES Act. It claims (at 14) that the phrase “deems necessary”

“exudes deference” to the Secretary, citing a case—Webster v. Doe, 486

U.S. 592, 600 (1988)—that precluded judicial review altogether. But

Webster construed the statutory phrase “deem … necessary or advisable,”

id. (emphasis added), which is significantly more deferential than “deems

necessary.” Also, while the first sentence of the HEROES Act includes

the phrase “deems necessary,” 20 U.S.C. §1098bb(a)(1), the most relevant

part says that the action must “be necessary to ensure” the statutory

goals are met, §1098bb(a)(2). That language requires meaningful judicial

review of the Department’s actions—not the judicial pass the agency

seeks. See Kentucky, 23 F.4th at 607 n.14 (noting the non-delegation

concerns raised by a similarly broad statutory reading).

The Department also argues (at 18) that the HEROES Act auth-

orizes any action for which a national emergency is a but-for cause.

Because the but-for “consequences of an act go forward to eternity,”

Holmes v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 266 n.10 (1992), that

9
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
interpretation produces absurd results, permitting COVID-19 to justify

the mass elimination of debt for years to come. See United States v. X-

Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 69 (1994) (counseling against absurd

interpretations). Read correctly, the statute demands proximate or direct

causation, meaning COVID-19 must be the “cause that directly produces”

the need for relief. Proximate Cause, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.

2019); see, e.g., Holmes, 503 U.S. at 265–68 (interpreting the phrase “by

reason of” in the federal RICO statute to require proximate causation).

The Department has not shown that here.

Lastly, the Department says (at 17) that because the Secretary

need not act “on a case-by-case basis,” he is allowed some “imprecision.”

But this is not a case of minor imprecision. The Secretary has wholly

failed to justify core eligibility requirements, see Mot. 23, and drafted a

rule that does not come close to complying with the HEROES Act’s text.

C. The States are likely to prevail on their APA arbitrary-

and-capricious claim.

The Department argues at (21) that it considered the option of

continuing forbearance because it extended forbearance until the end of

2022. But the Department did not consider whether to extend forbear-

ance beyond 2022. That renders its action arbitrary.

10
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
 The Department also contends (at 23–24 n.2) that the States lack

an interest in challenging the arbitrary distinction between FFEL borr-

owers who consolidated before September 29 and those who did not. Yet

the States are directly harmed by FFEL consolidation, so they may

challenge the inclusion of borrowers who consolidated. The Department

is desperate to avoid this issue because the agency has no reasonable

explanation for its shifting treatment of FFEL consolidation.

II. The remaining equitable factors favor the States.

Public Interest and No Harm to the Department. The Department

(at 24–25) does not deny that if the Cancellation is unlawful, the injunc-

tion is in the public interest, and the agency will not be harmed by it. See

Mot. 26–27. The Department thus concedes that these factors justify

relief if the States are likely to succeed on the merits.

Irreparable Harm. The Department’s irreparable-harm arguments

(at 25) simply repackage its standing arguments and are meritless for

the same reasons. The Department also intimates (at 26) that the pay-

ment pause somehow undermines the States’ irreparable harm. Yet for-

bearance did not erase loan accounts like the Cancellation does. The

harms at issue here are thus different than those caused by forbearance.

11
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
III. The Court should enjoin the entire Cancellation program.

“[W]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are

unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated—not that their

application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” Nat’l Min. Ass’n

v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Indeed, the APA itself—which permits courts to “set aside” unlawful

agency action, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)—“contemplates nationwide relief from

invalid agency action.” Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, 140 S.

Ct. 2367, 2412 n.28 (2020) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). “Courts across the

country interpret the APA [this] way.” Texas v. United States, No. 6:21-

CV-00016, 2022 WL 2109204, at *46 (S.D. Tex. June 10, 2022), cert.

granted, No. 22A17 (U.S. July 21, 2022) (collecting cases). The injunction

requested here would temporarily set aside the Secretary’s HEROES Act

waiver, thereby prohibiting implementation of the Cancellation. Such

programmatic relief is consistent with the Supreme Court’s order staying

the entire OSHA COVID-19 vaccine mandate pending full review. See

NFIB v. OSHA, 142 S. Ct. 661, 666–67 (2022) (per curiam).

Additionally, an injunction limited to certain States or borrowers

would fail “to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Madsen v.

12
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994). MOHELA services

accounts for borrowers nationwide, see Mot. 2, so a state-specific injunc-

tion will not prevent the harms to Missouri through MOHELA. Nor

would an injunction confined to loans serviced by MOHELA. The Depart-

ment could easily skirt that relief by transferring loans eligible for the

Cancellation to other servicers. See Who’s My Student Loan Servicer,

U.S. Dep’t of Educ., https://tinyurl.com/2p9xkya8 (listing nine servicers).

There is also “a substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited

injunction would be ineffective because” borrowers and accounts “move

among states.” Texas, 809 F.3d at 188; see also Pennsylvania v. President

U.S., 930 F.3d 543, 576 (3d Cir. 2019), rev’d on other grounds, Little

Sisters, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020). Regarding the States’ tax harms, inter-

state migration means that a borrower living in California with a loan

serviced in Wisconsin may reside in Iowa in 2026, so cancelling that debt

inflicts injury on Iowa. And as for the consolidation harms, FFEL consol-

idations injure the States even if the borrowers live beyond their borders.

CONCLUSION

The Court should enter an injunction pending appeal that stops

further implementation of the Cancellation. If the Court denies that

13
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 15 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
request or enters a narrow injunction, the States ask that the temporary

administrative stay remain in place for one week after this Court’s forth-

coming order so that they can seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Dated: October 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James A. Campbell

James A. Campbell
ERIC S. SCHMITT DOUGLAS J. PETERSON
Attorney General of Missouri Attorney General of Nebraska
D. JOHN SAUER JAMES A. CAMPBELL
Solicitor General of Missouri Solicitor General of Nebraska
MICHAEL E. TALENT CHRISTIAN EDMONDS
Deputy Solicitor General of Missouri Assistant Solicitor General of
MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL’S Nebraska
OFFICE OFFICE OF THE NEBRASKA
Post Office Box 899 ATTORNEY GENERAL
Jefferson City, MO 65102 2115 State Capitol
(314) 340-4869 Lincoln, NE 68509
[email protected] (402) 471-2682
[email protected]

LESLIE RUTLEDGE JEFFREY S. THOMPSON

Attorney General of Arkansas Solicitor General of Iowa
NICHOLAS J. BRONNI SAMUEL P. LANGHOLZ
Solicitor General of Arkansas Assistant Solicitor General of Iowa
DYLAN L. JACOBS OFFICE OF THE IOWA ATTORNEY
Deputy Solicitor General of Arkansas GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS ATTORNEY 1305 E. Walnut Street
GENERAL Des Moines, Iowa 50319
323 Center Street, Suite 200 (515) 281-5164
Little Rock, AR 72201 [email protected]
(501) 682-2007 [email protected]
[email protected]

14
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 16 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
DEREK SCHMIDT ALAN WILSON
Attorney General of Kansas Attorney General of South Carolina
SHANNON GRAMMEL J. EMORY SMITH, JR.
Deputy Solicitor General of Deputy Solicitor General of
Kansas South Carolina
OFFICE OF THE KANSAS ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA
120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 11549
Topeka, KS 66612 Columbia, SC 29211
(785) 296-2215 803-734-3680
[email protected] [email protected]

15
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This reply complies with the type-volume limit of Fed. R. App. P.

27(d)(2)(C) because, excluding the parts exempted by Fed. R. App. P.

32(f), it contains 2,579 words as determined by the word-counting feature

of Microsoft Word 2016.

This reply also complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(6) because it has been prepared using Microsoft Word 2016 in 14-

point proportionally spaced Century Schoolbook font.

And this reply complies with the electronic-filing requirements of

Local Rule 28A(h)(2) because it was scanned for viruses using Windows

Defender and no virus was detected.

/s/ James A. Campbell

James A. Campbell

16
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 18 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 25, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, and

that the CM/ECF system will accomplish service on all parties repre-

sented by counsel who are registered CM/ECF users.

/s/ James A. Campbell

James A. Campbell

17
Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 19 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 Entry ID: 5211454