Washington Attorney General Nick Brown announced on October 22 that the states challenging a U.S. Department of Education rule on Public Service Loan Forgiveness have won their case, after the department dropped its appeal of a court ruling that threw the rule out. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued parallel announcements the same day.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, created by Congress in 2007, forgives the remaining federal student loans of borrowers who work in public service and make 10 years of qualifying payments. The attorneys general said the Education Department rule would have let the administration strip eligibility from employees of government or nonprofit organizations it decided had a substantial illegal purpose.

A coalition of 22 attorneys general sued over the rule in November 2025. In June 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the rule; the College Investor, summarizing the court record, reported Judge Myong J. Joun ruled on June 30 that the rule was contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and a First Amendment violation. By dropping its appeal, the administration concedes the states' case and the district court's ruling stands, the attorneys general said.

A parallel case brought by nonprofits, cities and unions — National Council of Nonprofits v. McMahon — also ended this week: San Francisco's City Attorney's office said the federal government on Wednesday filed a joint stipulation of dismissal abandoning its appeal in that case, ensuring the rule will not take effect there either.

Brown said people across Washington and the country chose public-service careers — teaching children, caring for the sick and keeping the public safe — and that the program helps make that work possible. Rayfield said teachers, nurses, firefighters, social workers and nonprofit staff made a deal when they chose public service: serve the community, make payments for 10 years, and the loans would be forgiven. The characterizations of the rule as an attempt to weaponize the program are the plaintiff officials' — the Education Department did not issue a public explanation for dropping the appeals in the announcements reviewed.