WASHINGTON: A federal appeals court has allowed the US Education Department to move ahead with a plan to lower monthly payments for millions of student loan borrowers, putting on hold a ruling last week by a lower court.
The ruling from the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals puts back on track a central part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to address student debt — a rule that lowers from 10 percent of discretionary income to 5 percent the amount that some borrowers qualifying for a repayment plan need to pay.
The reduced payment threshold was set to take effect July 1, but federal judges in Kansas and Missouri last week blocked much of the administration’s student loan repayment plan in two separate rulings. The ruling on Sunday means the department can move ahead with the reduced payments already calculated while it pursues an appeal.
The rulings have created a difficult environment for borrowers to navigate, said Persis Yu, deputy executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, which advocates for eliminating student debt. The stay granted by the 10th Circuit is temporary, Yu said, leaving many borrowers in the dark about future financial obligations.
“Borrowers are having to make decisions right now about their financial lives, and they don’t know the very basic information that they need in order to make informed decisions,” Yu said.
The Biden administration created the SAVE plan last year to replace other existing income-based repayment plans offered by the federal government. It allowed many to qualify for lower payments, and forgiveness was granted to borrowers who had made payments for at least 10 years and originally borrowed $12,000 or less.
US Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said the Biden administrations remains committed “to our work to fix a broken student loan system and make college more affordable for more Americans.”
The appeals court ruling does not impact the injunction issued by a federal judge in Missouri, which prevents the Education Department from forgiving loan balances going forward.
The injunctions are the result of lawsuits from Republican-led states seeking to invalidate the Biden administration’s entire loan forgiveness program, which was first available to borrowers in the summer of 2023, and at least 150,000 have had their loans canceled. The suing states argued that the administration’s plan was a workaround after the Supreme Court struck down the original plan for student loan forgiveness earlier that year.
Appeals court allows part of Biden student loan repayment plan to go forward
https://arab.news/r8prw
Appeals court allows part of Biden student loan repayment plan to go forward
- The ruling on Sunday means the department can move ahead with the reduced payments already calculated while it pursues an appeal
Pro-Palestinian protesters clear out Canadian campus encampment
- University of Toronto President Meric Gertler said in a statement Wednesday he was pleased the encampment had ended peacefully
TORONTO: Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters cleared out tents and tarps on Wednesday from a fenced-off grassy area on the campus of Canada’s largest university, where for two months they had held an encampment, ahead of an evening deadline.
In a ruling on Tuesday, an Ontario judge ordered the protesters to leave by 6 p.m. on Wednesday (2200 GMT), granting an injunction requested by the University of Toronto. The judge said in this case free expression was no defense to trespass.
“We are leaving on our terms to protect our community,” said Mohammad Yassin, a recent University of Toronto graduate, a Palestinian and a spokesman for the protesters, to a crowd of supporters and reporters outside the former encampment site.
He added the occupation through the school’s convocation period was “a massive victory.”
The protesters had been calling on the University of Toronto to disclose its investments, divest from investments associated with the Israeli occupation and cut ties with some Israeli-affiliated institutions.
“Negotiations have been frozen for a little while now,” Yassin said.
University of Toronto President Meric Gertler said in a statement Wednesday he was pleased the encampment had ended peacefully.
“Members of our community continue to be free to exercise their right to free speech and lawful protest,” he said.
Erdogan offers to help end Russia-Ukraine war; Kremlin rules him out as intermediary
- Meeting with Putin on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Kazakhstan, Erdogan said he believed a fair peace suiting both sides was possible
ANKARA: Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan told Russia’s Vladimir Putin on Wednesday that Ankara could help end the Ukraine-Russia war, but Putin’s spokesman said Erdogan could not play the role of an intermediary in the 28-month-old conflict.
Erdogan, speaking to Putin on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Kazakhstan, said he believed a fair peace suiting both sides was possible, the Turkish presidency said.
But Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, ruled out any role as a go-between for the Turkish leader.
“No, it’s not possible,” said Peskov, when asked by a Russian television interviewer whether Erdogan could assume such a role, according to the Russian Tass news agency. The news agency’s account did not explain why the Kremlin was opposed to Erdogan’s participation.
The Turkish presidency said the two leaders also discussed the war in Gaza and ways to end the conflict in Syria.
Turkiye is a member of NATO, the US-led Western military alliance.
Unlike other NATO leaders, who have imposed sanctions on Putin’s government, Erdogan has tried to maintain good relations with both Russia and Ukraine throughout the conflict.
Turkiye played a key role in putting in place a deal to ensure grain could be shipped safely from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. The accord remained in effect for a year.
Fact Focus: Trump wasn’t exonerated by the presidential immunity ruling, even though he says he was
- None of Trump’s pending cases have been dismissed as a result of the ruling
Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday misrepresented in a social media post what the US Supreme Court’s Monday ruling on presidential immunity means for his civil and criminal cases.
“TOTAL EXONERATION!” he wrote in the post on his Truth Social platform. “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s Brilliantly Written and Historic Decision ENDS all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the WHITE HOUSE AND DOJ INSPIRED CIVIL HOAXES in New York.”
But none of Trump’s pending cases have been dismissed as a result of the ruling, nor have the verdicts already reached against him been overturned. The ruling does amount to a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying court proceedings until after the 2024 election.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
CLAIM: The Supreme Court’s ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution means “total exoneration” for former President Donald Trump.
THE FACTS: Although the historic 6-3 ruling is a win for Trump, he has not been exonerated and his legal troubles are far from over. A delay of his Washington trial on charges of election interference has been indefinitely extended as a result. Also, he still faces charges in two other criminal cases, and the verdicts already reached against him in a criminal and a civil case have not been overturned.
Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former US attorney for the state’s Eastern District, told The Associated Press that Trump’s claim is “inaccurate for a number of reasons.”
“The court found immunity from prosecution, not exoneration,” she wrote in an email. “The court did not say that Trump’s conduct did not amount to criminal behavior. Just that prosecutors are not allowed to prosecute him for it because of the special role of a president and the need to permit him to make ‘bold’ and ‘fearless’ decisions without concern for criminal consequences.”
McQuade wrote that Trump’s case over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate won’t be affected, as it arose from conduct committed after he left the White House. She added that any impact on his New York hush money trial “seems unlikely” since the crimes were committed in a personal capacity.
“In addition, the Court’s opinion is solely focused on immunity for criminal conduct,” McQuade continued, explaining that it will not protect him from civil liability in his cases regarding defamatory statements about advice columnist E. Jean Carroll or fraudulent business practices conducted at the Trump Organization.
Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority said former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. Unofficial, or private, actions are exempt from such immunity.
This means that special counsel Jack Smith cannot proceed with significant allegations in his indictment accusing Trump of plotting to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss, or he must at least defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.
The case has not been dismissed. It was instead sent back to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which the president would be immune from prosecution. The trial was supposed to have begun in March, but has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his Supreme Court appeal.
However, the justices did knock out one aspect of the indictment, finding that Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department.
The opinion also stated that Trump is “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, to reject certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s electoral vote win. But prosecutors can try to make the case that Trump’s pressure on Pence can still be part of the case against him, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
It is all but certain that the ruling means Trump will not face trial in Washington ahead of the 2024 election, as the need for further analysis is expected to tie up the case for months with legal wrangling over whether actions in the indictment were official or unofficial, the AP has reported.
Trump is facing charges in two other criminal cases, one over his alleged interference in Georgia’s 2020 election and the other over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. Trump’s lawyers have asserted presidential immunity in both cases, but a ruling on the matter has not been made in either.
The former president was convicted in May of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in New York. After Monday’s ruling, the New York judge who presided over that trial postponed Trump’s sentencing until at least September and agreed to weigh the impact of the presidential immunity decision.
Trump was ordered in February to pay a $454 million penalty as part of a civil fraud lawsuit, for lying about his wealth for years as he built the real estate empire that vaulted him to stardom and the White House. It is still under appeal.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996 and for defaming her over the allegations, awarding her $5 million. Carroll was awarded an additional $83.3 million in January by a separate jury for Trump’s continued social media attacks against her. An appeal of the former decision was rejected in April. The latter case is still being appealed.
French PM urges united front to stop far-right takeover
- France’s political future remains up in the air as the far-right National Rally (RN) party seeks to take control of government for the first time
ARIS: France’s prime minister on Wednesday urged voters to form a united front to block the far right in legislative elections, warning that the anti-immigration party of Marine Le Pen was within reach of winning an absolute majority.
With four days to go until the second round in the vote, France’s political future remains up in the air as the far-right National Rally (RN) party seeks to take control of government for the first time.
The RN dominated the first round of voting, presenting the party of Le Pen with the prospect of forming a government and her protege Jordan Bardella, 28, taking the post of premier in a tense “cohabitation” with centrist President Emmanuel Macron.
But a poll by Toluna Harris Interactive published Wednesday forecast the RN winning just 190 to 220 seats in the 577-seat parliament, far less than the 289 needed for the far right to have an absolute majority and form a government on its own.
A left-wing alliance called the New Popular Front looked set to win between 159 and 183 seats, and the centrist presidential camp 110 to 135, it predicted.
The new polling forecast comes after more than 200 candidates from the left and the center this week dropped out of three-way races in the second round of the contest, aiming to prevent the RN winning the seats.
While the formation of this so-called “Republican Front” seems to have generally been a success for the government, the key question now is whether voters will respond to the pleas to block the RN.
“There is one bloc that is able to have an absolute majority and it’s the extreme right,” Prime Minister Gabriel Attal told France Inter radio.
“On Sunday evening, what’s at stake in the second round is to do everything so that the extreme right does not have an absolute majority,” he said.
“It’s not nice for many French to have to block (the RN)... by casting a vote they did not want to,” he added, but “it’s our responsibility to do this.”
In one extreme example of how the united front works, in a constituency in northern France the hard-left candidate pulled out to leave a straight contest between the far right and the tough-talking Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin — long a hated figure for some on the left.
Former prime minister Edouard Philippe, still an influential voice in the pro-Macron camp, told TF1 television he would be voting for a Communist candidate to stop the far right in his constituency.
Le Pen has said the RN would try to form a government, if it gets more than 270 seats, by winning over other lawmakers.
London-based risk analysis firm Eurasia Group said the RN’s hopes of an absolute majority had been “blunted” by the front against the far right.
But it added: “Sunday is an almost completely new election, with dynamics of its own. The turnout will be crucial.”
Janine Mossuz-Lavau, emeritus research director at the Cevipof institute in Paris, said that voters would “do what they liked” irrespective of the calls from politicians, and that turnout risked being lower than the 66.7 percent of the first round.
“There are those who will say ‘I will not choose between cholera and plague and I won’t vote’,” she told AFP.
One option that is the subject of increasing media attention is the possibility that rather than a far-right government, France could be ruled by a broad coalition of pro-Macron centrists, the traditional right, Socialists and Greens.
Philippe said that after the election he would support a new parliamentary majority that could span “the conservative right to the social democrats” but not include the hard-left France Unbowed (LFI).
His comments were also echoed by Xavier Bertrand, a heavyweight right-winger who served as a minister under president Nicolas Sarkozy. He called for a “provisional government” focused on “rebuilding our country.”
Le Pen meanwhile denounced the tactical moves and talk of alliances.
“The political class is giving an increasingly grotesque image of itself,” she wrote on X.
After controversy over some of the RN’s candidates, including one who withdrew after a photo emerged of her wearing a Nazi Luftwaffe cap, Bardella acknowledged there could be some “black sheep” but insisted he was not worried.
Macron has kept his distance from the final phase of voting, which will reveal the outcome of his election gamble that baffled even close colleagues.
He has not spoken in public since an EU summit last Thursday.
During to a cabinet meeting, he said there was “no question” that a post-election coalition could include the LFI, a participant told AFP.
France expels Iranian suspected of influence peddling for Tehran
- Deportation of Bashir Biazar, reportedly a former senior figure in state television in Iran, frustrated Paris-based activists who last month filed a torture complaint against him
- Case has emerged at a time of heightened tensions between Paris and Tehran, with three French citizens — described by France as ‘state hostages’ — still imprisoned in Iran
PARIS: France on Wednesday expelled an Iranian suspected of influence peddling on behalf of the Islamic republic and having links to the Revolutionary Guards ideological army, his lawyer and Iranian officials said.
The deportation of Bashir Biazar, reportedly a former senior figure in state television in Iran, frustrated Paris-based activists who last month filed a torture complaint against him.
Biazar had been held in administrative detention since the start of June and was subject to a deportation order from the French interior ministry.
Mohammad Mahdi Rahimi, the head of public relations for the office of the Iranian president, wrote on X that Biazar “has been released and is on his way back to his homeland.”
He said Biazar had been “illegally arrested and imprisoned in France a few weeks ago.”
But a representative of the French interior ministry, speaking at a hearing earlier Wednesday, said Biazar was an “agent of influence, an agitator who promotes the views of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, more worryingly, harasses opponents of the regime.”
The representative accused Biazar of filming journalists from Iranian opposition media in September in front of the Iranian consulate in Paris after an arson attack on the building.
French authorities also accused him of posting messages on social networks in connection with the war between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza in which he denounced “Zionist dogs.”
During the hearing, his lawyer Rachid Lemoudaa said that the expulsion order was based on “assumptions” and that his client’s comments fell within the scope of “freedom of expression.”
“I have never been made aware of any threat whatsoever” posed by Biazar, he added.
Biazar has been described by the London-based Iran International television channel as a former official for Iranian state broadcaster IRIB.
Iranian state media have described him as a “cultural figure.”
The case has emerged at a time of heightened tensions between Paris and Tehran, with three French citizens — described by France as “state hostages” — still imprisoned in Iran.
A fourth French detainee, Louis Arnaud, held in Iran since September 2022, was suddenly released last month.
Activist group Iran Justice and victims of human rights violations filed the torture complaint against Biazar last month in Paris.
It accuses Biazar of complicity in torture due to his past work with IRIB, describing him as a former director of production there.
The complaint referred to the regular broadcasts by Iranian state television of statements by — and even interviews with — Iranian or foreign prisoners, which activists regard as forced confessions.
“It is incomprehensible... that no legal proceedings have been initiated” against Biazar, Chirinne Ardakani, the Paris-based lawyer behind the complaint, told AFP.
She said there were “serious indications” implicating Biazar “in the production, recording and broadcasting of forced confessions obtained clearly under torture.”
“Nothing is clear in this case,” she added.
The French citizens still held in Iran are Cecile Kohler, a teacher, and her partner Jacques Paris, detained since May 2022, and another man identified only as Olivier.
Kohler appeared on Iranian television in October 2022 giving comments activists said amounted to a forced confession.
Amnesty International describes Kohler as “arbitrarily detained... amidst mounting evidence Iran’s authorities are holding her hostage to compel specific action(s) by French authorities.”
Meanwhile, Sweden last month released Hamid Noury, a former Iranian official it had jailed over the 1988 mass executions of dissidents in Iran, in exchange for two Swedes jailed in the Islamic republic.
The exchange was bitterly criticized by campaigners who had fought for Noury to be bought to justice under the principle of universal jurisdiction, and by the family of Swedish citizen Ahmadreza Jalali, who faces the death penalty in Iran and was not included in the deal.
