Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

Each state repects the decisions that other states make regarding the law here are a number of examples/law suits and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX The information provided acts as evidence as to why I am disputing THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONS claims on my consumer report. 
Please Be advised and read carefully this entire report and case law should THE XXXX DEPARTMENT OF XXXX continue to furnish and wrongly report on my consumer report, The evidence has been presented and THE XXXX DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and DIRECT LOANS can no longer deny the facts and the law and my Demand for them to immediately remove all false claims they have reported on my consumer report. 
XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXX ___________________________ No. XXXX ___________________________ State of Missouri ; XXXX of Arkansas ; XXXX of Florida ; XXXX of Georgia ; XXXX of North Dakota XXXX XXXX of Ohio ; XXXX of OklahomaPlaintiffs - Appelleesv. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, in his official capacity as President of the United States ; XXXX XXXX, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Education ; United States Department XXXX XXXX - Appellants___________________________ No. XXXX ___________________________ State of Missouri ; XXXX of Arkansas ; XXXX of Florida ; XXXX of Georgia ; XXXX of North Dakota XXXX XXXX of Ohio ; XXXX of OklahomaPlaintiffs - Appellantsv. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, in his official capacity as President of the United States ; XXXX XXXX, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Education ; United States Department XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX Appeal from United States XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Missouri XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Filed : XX/XX/XXXX [ Published ] ____________ Before XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, Circuit Judges XXXX ____________ PER CURIAM.Before us is the motion of XXXX XXXX Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma ( collectively, the XXXX ) seeking an injunction pending appeal preventing the United States XXXX of XXXX from implementing a plan to forgive approximately {$470.00} XXXX in federal-student-loan debt. See Improving Income Driven Repayment for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Program, XXXX Fed. XXXX. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( also known as the XXXX XXXX or XXXX ). We XXXX in part and deny in part the XXXX motion for the following reasons.I. XXXX is the Secretary of Educations latest regulation creating a new version of the income-contingent repayment ( ICR ) plan under the Higher Education Act ( HEA ). See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ) ( directing the XXXX to offer a borrower of a loan made under this part a variety of plans for repayment of such loan, including principal and interest on the loan ) ; XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) ( directing the XXXX to establish an ICR plan ). Before XXXX, the XXXX plan was governed by the terms of a regulation known as XXXX, and before XXXX, it was governed by XXXX. Both REPAYE and XXXX forgave borrowers remaining principal at the end of XXXX or twenty-five years of repayment, see Student Assistance General XXXX Provisions, Federal Family Education XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fed. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ; Federal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Federal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fed XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), without clear authorization to do so from XXXX. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) ; XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ). However, these plans were relatively uncontroversial as they were limited in scope and less generous than income-based repayment ( IBR ) plans, which XXXX had XXXX established to enable more-favorable repayment terms and ultimately loan forgiveness for borrowers who could demonstrate financial hardship. See XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( requiring that the XXXX shall repay or cancel any outstanding balance of principal and interest due once an XXXX borrower meets certain requirements ). The new XXXX plan, by contrast, is an order of magnitude broader than anything that has come before. Its altered payment-threshold provisions significantly lower payment amounts, often to {$0.00} per month. See XXXX Fed. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. SAVE additionally does not charge borrowers accrued interest and forgives principal balances much sooner, see id., and sets up a sliding-scale loan-forgiveness calculation under which loans can be forgiven in as little as 10 years. Id. at XXXX, XXXX. The net result is that millions of borrowers who opt-in to SAVE will pay nothing towards their principal balance, nothing towards interest, and then will have their untouchedprincipal balance forgiven sooner. See Press Release, The XXXX House, FACT SHEET : XXXX XXXX Cancels Student Debt for more than XXXX Student LoanBorrowers Ahead of Schedule ( XXXX ), https : XXXX plaintiff States sued XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX United States Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX the Government ) to enjoin prospectively the implementation of XXXX. The district court granted in part the XXXX motion for a preliminary injunction after finding that at least XXXX plaintiff, Missouri, had established standing through its state XXXX instrumentalitythe Higher XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Missouri XXXX XXXX ) and that XXXX was facing certain irreparable harm. The district court concluded that the XXXX had shown a fair chance of success on the merits of their claims both that loan forgiveness is not statutorily authorized for any XXXX plan and that XXXX violates separation of powers under the major-questions doctrine. However, the district court only enjoined XXXX XXXX forgiveness of loans, finding that the XXXX had not shown irreparable harm with respect to the payment-threshold provisions and the nonaccrual of XXXX the district courts injunction, the Government continues to forgive loans for borrowers enrolled in XXXX. It does so through a new so-called hybrid rule. The Governments hybrid rule combines the parts of XXXX that the district court did not enjoin, such as the payment-threshold provisions and nonaccrual of interest, with the forgiveness-of-principal provisions in XXXX. Through this hybrid plan, the Government has been able to make it such that borrowers who, prior to the district courts preliminary injunction, made reduced or {$0.00} payments pursuant to SAVE before ultimately being forgiven the remainder of their balance are now, after the district courts preliminary injunction, still making the same reduced or {$0.00} payments pursuant to SAVE and are still ultimately being forgiven the remainder of their loan balance pursuant to XXXX. Indeed, the Government concedes as much. XXXX XXXX. in Oppn to Emergency Mot. for XXXX. Pending Appeal at XXXX ( acknowledging that [ a ] XXXX a result [ of the injunction ],... the XXXX plan was partly amended and renamed [ to SAVE ], governed by the terms of the Final Rule except for the criteria regarding time to forgiveness, which reverted to the terms of the original XXXX plan ). The Governments hybrid plan was created after and in response to the district courts preliminary injunction and has effectively rendered that injunction a nullity. As a result of the hybrid plan, the only practical effect of the district courts injunction is that borrowers formerly enrolled under XXXX and now enrolled under the hybrid plan will not be eligible for loan forgiveness until they have been making payments for at least 20 years, as opposed to as early as 10 years. But their payments are often {$0.00} per month pursuant to the non-enjoined parts XXXX of XXXX, and after XXXX years of {$0.00} payments, the loans XXXX still be entirely forgiven. The Government appealed the district courts injunction. The XXXX cross-appealed, seeking an expanded injunction pending appeal in the district court. The district court denied this motion before the Government could file a response. As the Governments hybrid plan took shape, the XXXX moved to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction in the district court, asking the district court to clarify that its preliminary injunction prohibits [ the Government ] from using XXXX authority to forgive loans for any borrowers enrolled in the XXXX plan. The district court denied the motion. The XXXX then sought an injunction pending appeal in this court. In light of the Governments post-injunction actions, we administratively stayed implementation of the hybrid rule on XX/XX/XXXX until the parties could fully brief the emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. II.We now turn to the merits of the XXXX emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. Like the Governments last attempt to engage in mass student-loan cancellation, [ XXXX ] hatever the eventual outcome of this case, it will affect the finances of millions of Americans with student loan debt as well as those Americans who pay taxes to finance the government and indeed everyone who is affected by such far-reaching fiscal decisions. Nebraska XXXX XXXX ( Nebraska XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). As such, we approach the motion before us with great care. Id. In ruling on a request for an injunction pending appeal, the court must engage in the same inquiry as when it reviews the XXXX or denial of a preliminary injunction. Id. at XXXX ; see XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). [ A ] district court XXXX XXXX a preliminary injunction when a movant shows [ XXXX ] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [ XXXX ] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [ XXXX ] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [ XXXX ] that an injunction is in the public interest.... XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ). While no single factor is determinative, the probability of success factor is the most significant. Id. A movant shows a likelihood of success on the merits when [ he ] demonstrates a fair chance, not necessarily greater than XXXX percent, that [ he ] will ultimately prevail under applicable law. Id. at XXXX ( internal quotation marks omitted ). In circumstances where the movant has raised a substantial question and the equities are otherwise strongly in his favor, the showing of success on the merits can be less. Nebraska XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( internal quotation marks omitted ) ; see also XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( If the balance tips decidedly towards the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have raised questions serious enough to require litigation, ordinarily the injunction should issue. ). As a threshold matter, we agree with the district court that [ t ] he allegations in the Complaint are substantially similar to, if not identical to, those the Supreme Court held were sufficient to establish XXXX standing just last year in XXXX XXXX Nebraska ( Nebraska XXXX ), XXXX XXXX -- --, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), and thus that at least XXXX of the XXXX, Missouri, has standing to sue. See Nebraska XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, we turn to the most significant factorthe likelihood of success on the merits. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX have demonstrated XXXX least a fair chance that they will ultimately prevail under applicable law. Id. at XXXX. The XXXX plan is even larger in scope than the loan-cancellation program at issue in Nebraska XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX. According to the same budget model issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX University XXXX Pennsylvania cited in Nebraska XXXX, XXXX is anticipated to forgive an estimated {$470.00} XXXX dollars in student loans.See id. at XXXX ; Bidens New Income-Driven Repayment ( XXXX ) Plan : Budgetary Cost Estimate Update, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). The Governments asserted authority to implement XXXX rests on the HEAs directive to the XXXX of XXXX to establish an income contingent repayment plan, with varying annual repayment amounts based on the income of the borrower, paid over an extended period of time prescribed by the XXXX, not to exceed 25 years.