Sweet v. McMahon
Learn if you are a member of the Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona and Sweet v. DeVos) class, and find out more information for class members below:
The Latest
Key Upcoming Dates:
Friday, March 20 at 2 PM ET / 11 AM PT: Join us for oral argument on the Department of Education’s latest attempt to delay settlement relief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Zoom link will be found here.
Monday, March 30: ED owes Exhibit C post-class applicants who did not receive decisions by the deadline a notice of eligibility for full settlement relief.
Wednesday, April 15: Deadline for ED to issue decisions to remaining post-class borrowers.
Post-Class Deadline Update:
On February 24, 2026, the court denied the Department of Education’s requestto further delay the decision deadline for post-class applicants. The hearing previously scheduled for March 26th to address the Department’s request has been cancelled. Read PPSL’s full statement here. Late on February 24, the Department of Education filed a notice of appeal. For now, nothing changes and existing deadlines remain in effect.
On February 27, the Department of Education filed a motion to stay in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in yet another attempt to delay settlement relief.
On March 9, PPSL filed a response arguing that the Department’s motion is both procedurally improper and legally meritless. The district court has already rejected these arguments twice. Post-class members’ rights have already taken effect because the relevant deadlines have already passed. Read PPSL’s full statement here.
Post-Class Applicants: As ever, the law is on our side.
If you are a post-class applicant from an Exhibit C School who did not receive a decision by January 28, 2026, you are entitled to full settlement relief. You should receive a notice from ED stating your eligibility for full settlement relief by March 30, 2026. Your relief should be delivered within one year of receiving that notice.
Post-class applicants who did not attend an Exhibit C school are owed a decision from ED by April 15.
PPSL remains committed to ensuring that every class member receives the relief they are entitled to under the settlement, and we will continue to share new information as soon as possible.
Town Hall Recap:
On February 26, 2026, PPSL hosted a virtual town hall for the Sweet Post-Class, bringing together thousands of borrowers to share important case updates, clarify next steps, and address common questions. Find our summary and full presentation slide deck in our new blog recap here.
Background:
On November 20, 2025, PPSL and student borrowers filed a response including stories shared from post-class members about how granting the Department of Education's requested delay would cause significant financial harm to borrowers. PPSL filed the following response with exhibited evidence: Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Motion To Strike Defendants’ Motion For Relief From Judgment (Exhibit 1,Exhibit 2,Exhibit 3).
At the hearing on December 11, 2025, Judge Alsup ruled to deny ED’s request to extend relief decisions for post-class applications related to Exhibit C schools by 18 months and affirmed April 15, 2026 as the deadline for all other Post-Class Applicant decisions.
On January 22, 2026, the Department of Education again asked the court to extend the deadline for deciding post-class applications related to Exhibit C schools. On January 23, 2026, PPSL filed a response, arguing that the Department’s motion is an improper attempt to obtain “administrative” relief and is not permitted by the local rules of the court.
Students React to Sweet Victory
⏺
Students React to Sweet Victory ⏺
About Sweet v. McMahon
-
Named Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all other federal student loan borrowers whose claims for loan cancellation (“Borrower Defense applications”) had been ignored by the Department of Education — many of them since 2015.
The law is clear: students who experienced fraud should not be required to pay back federal loans. Since the Department of Education repeatedly ignored these students’ legal rights, the only way they could have their voices heard was through the courts.
-
May 21, 2025: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Everglades College, Inc.’s motion for rehearing en banc.
March 13, 2025: The court ordered the servicers and the Ombudsman to report statistics regarding average wait times borrowers have to spend on the phone, time before they get a written response, and the backlog of class member complaints.
December 20, 2024: Everglades College, Inc., one of the intervenors, petitioned for a rehearing en banc of the decision denying intervenors’ attempt to overturn the settlement. Plaintiffs and the Department of Education opposed the petition.
December 12, 2024: The court denied the Department’s motion to use a different relief calculation method and ordered that the methods adopted for implementing relief for the Automatic Relief Group and Decision Groups 1 and 2 shall be used for Decision Groups 3, 4, 5, and the Post-Class.
November 5, 2024: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor, rejecting the attempt by three intervenor schools to overturn the Settlement.
September 26, 2024: In response to the Department’s further breach of the Settlement by failing to deliver timely relief to Decision Group 1, the court ordered Full Settlement Relief for Decision Group 1 by December 20, 2024, and for Decision Group 2 by January 28, 2025. The court mandated that the same relief methodology be used for these Decision Groups as for the Automatic Relief Group.
May 24, 2024: As a further condition to monitor the Department’s compliance, the court permitted plaintiffs’ counsel to access the FSA Ombudsman’s office to inspect records and to “look over the shoulder” of the Ombudsman to ensure accountability and progress.
April 24, 2024: The court adopted a schedule for the Department to remedy its admitted material breach of the Settlement Agreement and imposed conditions to monitor the Department’s compliance, including monthly in-person hearings and bi-weekly in-person meetings attended by the Department, the servicers, and plaintiffs’ counsel.
March 19, 2024: Borrowers filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement due to the Department’s failure to effectuate full settlement relief for the Automatic Relief Group by the January 28, 2024, deadline. The court ordered the Department to notify loan servicers to appear for a hearing on April 24, 2024.
March 29, 2023: The Ninth Circuit denied the intervenor schools’ motion to stay the settlement pending their appeals. This meant that settlement relief could proceed for class members from Lincoln Tech, Keiser/Everglades, and American National University, and would continue on course for everyone else.
February 27, 2023: The three intervenors moved the Ninth Circuit to stay the settlement pending appeal, which delayed implementation of the settlement as to the three intervening schools.
March 29, 2023: The Ninth Circuit denied the intervenor schools’ motion to stay the settlement pending their appeals. This means that settlement relief can now proceed for class members from Lincoln Tech, Keiser/Everglades, and American National University, and will continue on course for everyone else.
February 27, 2023: The three intervenors moved the Ninth Circuit to stay the settlement pending appeal. While this motion is pending, the settlement will not take effect as to the three intervening schools.
February 24, 2023: The district court denied the motion to stay the settlement pending appeal.
January 13, 2023: Three of the intervening schools filed notices of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and moved the district court to stay the settlement pending their appeal.
November 16, 2022: The court granted final approval of the settlement.
August 4, 2022: The court grants preliminary approval of the new settlement.
July 25, 2022: Borrowers file a response to predatory colleges’ meritless attempts to intervene in the settlement.
June 22, 2022: The parties filed a proposed settlement agreement.
March 2021: Borrowers file a supplemental complaint citing this new evidence and challenging the blanket denials.
Fall 2020: In a historic hearing held on Zoom and attended by over 500 student borrowers, the judge finds the Department of Education was not acting in good faith and rejects the proposed settlement. The judge also orders discovery, allowing lawyers for the student borrowers in this case to obtain documents and to depose officials at the Department of Education.
Spring 2020: Department of Education sends out tens of thousands of blanket denials of borrower defense claims, acting in bad faith under settlement agreement.
April 2020: The first proposed settlement agreement is filed.
December 2019: Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, the Department begins issuing form denial notices to borrowers who had applied for loan cancellation.
October 30, 2019: Case is certified as a class action.
June 25, 2019: Case is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the San Francisco Bay Area on June 25, 2019.
-
Over the past several decades, millions of students borrowed federal student loans to attend various for-profit colleges, including ITT Technical Institute, Corinthian Colleges, the Art Institutes, Salter College, Brooks Institute of Photography, and more.
Between 2015 and today, over 750,000 borrowers have asserted their right under federal law to discharge their federal student loans due to their schools’ misconduct (“borrower defense”). As it was legally obligated to do, the Department of Education started to adjudicate these claims in 2016, approving nearly 28,000 borrower defenses in the six-month period before January 20, 2017.
Then, under Secretary Betsy DeVos, the Department of Education halted all processing of borrower defense claims. As of June 2019, more than 200,000 students had a borrower defense application pending. Many had been unresolved for nearly four years.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to demand that the Department do its job and start adjudicating their borrower defenses immediately. Over the course of three years of litigation, the borrower defense backlog only grew, while the plaintiffs uncovered evidence that Department’s policies had stacked the deck against borrowers. The settlement agreement will resolve these long-pending applications and finally deliver justice to borrowers.
As of May 2025, the Sweet settlement has delivered relief to over 271,000 borrowers and counting. PPSL lawyers continue to have weekly meetings with the Department and the servicers to ensure that those borrowers still waiting for their relief do not slip through the cracks.
-
March 9, 2026: Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
March 6, 2026: Motion for Counsel Fees (535)
March 6, 2026: Declaration Of Rebecca C. Ellis, Esq., In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Application For Fees And Costs (535-1)
February 24, 2026: Order Denying Defendants' Motion For Relief (529)
February 5, 2026: Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motion For Relief From Judgment (525)
February 3, 2026: Joint Case Management Statement (522)
January 30, 2026: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion for Ruling Without Hearing or Specially Set Hearing Date (519); Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to Extend Deadline to Appeal the December 11, 2025, Order (520)
January 30, 2026: Intervenor Everglades' Reply
January 29, 2026: Defendants' Administrative Motion for Ruling Without Hearing or Specially Set Hearing Date (517); Defendants' Motion to Extend the Deadline to Appeal the December 11, 2025, Order (518)
January 23, 2026: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Request for Admin Relief
January 22, 2026: Defendants' Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b) (514); Richard Lucas Declaration (514-1)
January 21, 2026: Opposition to Cert Petition of Plaintiffs
January 21, 2026: Governments' Opposition to Cert
December 9, 2025: Defendants' Declaration of Nicholas Kent (507)
November 28, 2025: Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion for Relief from Judgement (503)
November 21, 2025: Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Supplemental Brief (501)
November 20, 2025: Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Motion To Strike Defendants’ Motion For Relief From Judgment
November 14, 2025: Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Response to the Court's Order Dated November 8, 2026 (498); Bergeron Declaration (498-1)
November 6, 2025: Defendants' Motion for Relief from Judgement (492); Bergeron Declaration (492-1)
May 21, 2025: Denial of Petition for Rehearing En Banc
May 2, 2025: Department of Education’s Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc
April 14, 2025: Servicer letters in response to Court’s request for data
January 31, 2025: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc
December 30, 2024: Amicus Brief of Ohio and other states in support of Everglades
December 20, 2024: Intervenor Everglades’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc
November 5, 2024: United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit Decision
August 26, 2024: Third Notice of Settlement Breach
April 9, 2024: Plaintiffs’ Reply In Support Of Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement
April 2, 2024: Defendants’ Response To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Enforce
March 19, 2024: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement
March 1, 2024: Department of Education Supplemental Letter to Notice of Material Breach of Settlement Agreement
March 1, 2024: Supplemental Letter to Meet & Confer Session
February 16, 2024: Department of Education Response to First Notice of Material Breach
February 14, 2024: Second Notice of Material Breach of Settlement Agreement
February 2, 2024: Notice of Material Breach of Settlement Agreement
November 27, 2023: Third Quarterly Report under Settlement Agreement in Sweet et al. v. Cardona
September 22, 2023: Intervenors’ Reply Brief
August 28, 2023: Second Quarterly Report under Settlement Agreement in Sweet et al. v. Cardona
August 2, 2023: Plaintiffs’ Response to Intervenors
August 2, 2023: Department of Education’s Response to Intervenors
May 30, 2023: First Quarterly Report under Settlement Agreement in Sweet et al. v. Cardona
May 4, 2023: Intervenors’ Opening Appellate Brief
April 23, 2023: Supreme Court Order of Pending Case
March 29, 2023: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
March 24, 2023: Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeals
March 9, 2023: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion To Stay Pending Appeal and Motion to Dismiss
January 27, 2023: Opposition to Motion To Stay Settlement Relief
November 16, 2022: Final Approval
September 22, 2022: Joint Motion for Final Approval
August 9, 2022: Schedule for Final Approval
August 9, 2022: Corrected Exhibit C
August 4, 2022: Preliminary Approval Order
July 25, 2022: Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Motions to Intervene
July 25, 2022: Government’s Consolidated Opposition to Motions to Intervene
July 14, 2022: Chicago School of Professional Psychology Motion to Intervene
July 13, 2022: Lincoln Educational Services / American National University Motion to Intervene
July 13, 2022: Everglades College Inc. Motion to Intervene
June 23, 2022: Defendants’ Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
June 22, 2022: Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
June 22, 2022: Settlement Agreement
June 9, 2022: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
February 24, 2022: Plaintiffs’ Response to Order re Class Member Letter with exhibit
March 28, 2021: Supplemental Complaint
Supplemental Complaint Exhibits
October 30, 2020: Plaintiffs Response to Order to Show Cause
Affidavits in Support of Plaintiffs Response to Order to Show Cause
October 23, 2020: Transcript of Fairness Hearing
October 10, 2020: Hearing Zoom Chat Transcript
August 20, 2020: Motion for Case Management Conference
Student Affidavits from Motion for Case Management
June 25, 2019: Complaint
"On the day I graduated college, I never imagined that I would find myself locked in a nearly 20 year battle for justice against a for-profit education company that defrauded me, and against the federal government for failing to protect me from this fraud. More than a quarter million defrauded students have been waiting far too long for justice that should have come without delay, but for which we instead had to fight tooth and nail. But we didn’t give up. Defrauded borrowers stepped up to the plate over and over to share their stories, speak to the court, and refuse to take any of this lying down. Now, when I look back at the day I graduated from college, I think of a lesson my school never taught me — know your rights, and never stop fighting for them."
— Theresa Sweet, lead plaintiff in Sweet v. McMahon
News Coverage
