USA Group Loan Services, Inc. v. Riley
1996 WL 199616, 82 F.3d 708 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Higher Education Act, the Secretary of Education has the authority to issue regulations imposing strict, joint and several liability on third-party servicers to ensure their financial accountability for program violations. An agency's withdrawal of a proposal during non-binding negotiated rulemaking after the proposal was rejected does not constitute bad faith sufficient to invalidate the final rule.
Facts:
- The federal government, through the Department of Education, administers a large student loan program where loans made by banks are indirectly guaranteed with federal money.
- Third-party companies, known as 'servicers', are hired by schools, banks, and loan guarantors to handle the administrative burdens of the loan program, such as collecting payments and processing claims.
- Mistakes and fraud by these servicers resulted in significant losses of federal funds.
- In 1992, Congress amended the Higher Education Act to authorize the Secretary of Education to prescribe regulations for servicers to establish 'minimum standards' for sound management and accountability.
- Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary of Education promulgated regulations making servicers liable for financial losses caused by their violations of program rules.
- The liability imposed is 'strict', meaning a servicer is responsible for losses even from inadvertent errors made without negligence.
- The liability is also 'joint and several' but structured as a 'back-up' liability, allowing the Department to collect from a servicer only after it is unable to collect from the servicer's client (the school, bank, or guarantor).
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Education promulgated final regulations concerning third-party servicers after a period of negotiated rulemaking and notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- A group of third-party servicers (plaintiffs) sued the Department of Education in the U.S. District Court to invalidate portions of the regulations.
- The district court (trial court) rejected the servicers' challenge and ruled in favor of the Department of Education.
- The servicers (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do regulations imposing strict, joint and several liability on third-party student loan servicers exceed the Secretary of Education's statutory authority or constitute an arbitrary and capricious agency action?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
No, the regulations do not exceed the Secretary's authority and are not an arbitrary and capricious action. The servicers' argument that the statutory term 'minimum' standards means 'minimal' is frivolous; a minimum is a floor, not a ceiling. The servicers failed to meet their burden of showing that imposing strict liability was unreasonable or a significant increase over their potential common law tort liabilities, particularly given the doctrine of respondeat superior. While strict liability may not always increase the level of care compared to negligence, it provides a greater incentive for care than the no-liability or capped-liability positions advocated by the servicers. Furthermore, the Secretary's conduct during the mandatory negotiated rulemaking process was not in bad faith. Withdrawing a proposed liability cap after the servicers rejected it is a normal part of negotiation, not a basis to invalidate the subsequent rule.
Analysis:
This decision affirms an agency's broad authority to enact stringent regulations to protect the financial integrity of its programs, including imposing strict liability on third-party contractors. It clarifies that when an industry challenges a regulation as unreasonable based on its economic impact, the burden is on the industry to provide data supporting its claim. The opinion also provides important early guidance on the judicial review of 'negotiated rulemaking,' establishing a highly deferential standard that protects the administrative process by preventing failed negotiations from becoming a primary basis for litigation against the final rule.
