Havens vs Department of Education: SAVE, REPAYE and the Latest Case Status
Havens vs Department of Education is a federal lawsuit about student-loan repayment after the SAVE plan ended. Four borrowers say the Department of Education should have restored the older REPAYE plan when a court vacated the regulations that created SAVE. The Department disagrees, leaving the federal judge to decide whether the agency has a legal duty to offer REPAYE again.
The case is Havens v. U.S. Department of Education, No. 1:26-cv-00816, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs are Heather Havens, Elizabeth Robeson, Anna Grunseth and William Boykin, and the defendants are the Department and Education Secretary Linda McMahon. The borrowers seek temporary and longer-term relief, while the government has asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint.
As of November 7, 2026, no ruling has been reported on either the preliminary-injunction request or the Department’s motion to dismiss. The federal case record documents the filings, and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) continues to list the case as in progress. This means the lawsuit has not restored REPAYE or suspended the Department’s existing instructions for former SAVE borrowers.
What borrowers should know
- The four borrowers filed Havens on March 9, 2026, and amended their complaint in June.
- The legal issue now centers on REPAYE, not simply bringing back every feature of SAVE.
- The borrowers argue that REPAYE returned when the SAVE regulations were vacated.
- The Department says REPAYE cannot automatically be reinstated and wants the case dismissed.
- The court has not granted an injunction or decided the motion to dismiss.
- Former SAVE borrowers must still follow individual repayment-plan notices from their servicers.
Why Did the Havens Lawsuit Start?
SAVE, short for Saving on a Valuable Education, was an income-driven repayment plan intended to lower payments for many federal student-loan borrowers. The Department created it in 2023 by changing regulations that previously governed the Revised Pay As You Earn plan, known as REPAYE. Several states challenged SAVE, arguing that the Department exceeded the powers Congress gave it.
The litigation resulted in an important Eighth Circuit decision in February 2025 that restricted SAVE and addressed related forgiveness provisions. In March 2026, after additional proceedings, the Eighth Circuit directed entry of final judgment in the Missouri case. On March 10, the district court vacated the SAVE Final Rule, with a narrow exception involving certain deferment and forbearance provisions.
That decision ended SAVE, but it left a question about the rules that existed before it. The Havens borrowers argue that removing the SAVE amendments should have brought the earlier REPAYE rules back into effect. The Department says the earlier court rulings and the broader legal framework do not require it to revive that plan.
What Is the Difference Between SAVE and REPAYE?
REPAYE was an older federal income-driven repayment plan that calculated payments using income and other borrower information. SAVE amended that framework and offered different payment protections and loan-forgiveness terms. Because the plans were not identical, restoring REPAYE would not necessarily restore a borrower’s former SAVE payment.
The disagreement is about how federal regulations work when a court sets aside amendments to an existing rule. The borrowers say the prior rules should operate again unless they are lawfully repealed. The government says REPAYE cannot simply resume under the circumstances created by the SAVE litigation.
| Question | SAVE | REPAYE |
|---|---|---|
| What was it? | A newer income-driven repayment framework created through 2023 regulations | The earlier Revised Pay As You Earn plan |
| Current availability | Ended following the March 2026 judgment | Not currently offered for enrollment |
| Role in Havens | Its vacatur triggered the dispute | Borrowers argue its earlier rules should now apply |
| Would the payments be identical? | No, SAVE used its own terms | REPAYE could produce different payment amounts and forgiveness timelines |
What Are the Four Borrowers Arguing?
Heather Havens, Elizabeth Robeson, Anna Grunseth and William Boykin brought their case under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Their amended complaint argues that the Department is refusing to perform duties required by the REPAYE regulations. It also challenges whether the agency can effectively remove a repayment plan without using the rulemaking procedures required by law.
The plaintiffs describe the Department’s actions as a “shadow repeal” of REPAYE. They say the government has treated the older plan as unavailable without formally repealing it through the necessary process. The dispute turns on how federal income-contingent repayment regulations and the APA rules governing agency action should be interpreted.
They also seek relief for borrowers they believe have already satisfied applicable forgiveness requirements and for the effects of the lengthy SAVE forbearance. Those are claims made by the plaintiffs, not benefits a judge has awarded. The court must decide what duties the Department owes before ordering any remedy.
Why Does the Department Disagree?
The Department argues that the borrowers misunderstand the effect of the SAVE judgment. In its view, the earlier appellate decisions raised legal problems involving REPAYE-related forgiveness provisions as well as SAVE. It therefore contends that vacating SAVE did not automatically require the government to restart REPAYE.
The government also argues that the plaintiffs have not met the legal requirements for some of their claims or requested remedies. It has asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint and opposed the request for immediate relief. The judge has not yet decided whose interpretation is correct.
This dispute illustrates a broader legal issue: federal agencies must operate within the authority Congress grants and comply with controlling court decisions. For more background on that legal hierarchy, readers can read TheLawLearner’s explanation of how the Constitution and valid federal laws govern government action. In Havens, the specific question is whether the Department’s refusal to administer REPAYE complies with those higher legal authorities and existing regulations.
Has the Court Ordered REPAYE Restored?
No. The borrowers filed an amended complaint and moved for a preliminary injunction on June 23, 2026. An injunction could provide temporary protection during litigation, but requesting one does not change the law or the Department’s policy by itself.
The Department filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in July. Both sides completed their main briefing, including supplemental submissions during August. The NASFAA litigation tracker still describes the case as “In process” and reports no ruling on either major motion as of this article’s update.What Does Havens Mean for Former SAVE Borrowers Right Now?
The pending case does not automatically extend a borrower’s deadline or make REPAYE available for enrollment. According to Federal Student Aid’s SAVE transition guidance, loan servicers began sending notices on July 1, 2026, telling affected borrowers to select another eligible plan. Borrowers generally have 90 days from their own servicer’s notice, not 90 days from the first national announcement.
If a borrower does not select a plan during that period, the servicer sends a final 30-day notice. Continued inaction can lead to automatic enrollment in the Standard or Tiered Standard repayment plan, depending on the loans. Payments under those plans may be higher than under an eligible income-driven option.
Available choices depend on loan type and disbursement date. Federal Student Aid lists plans such as Income-Based Repayment (IBR), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), and the newer Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) for borrowers who meet their respective requirements. PAYE and ICR are scheduled to end no later than July 1, 2028, so borrowers should compare both their immediate payment and longer-term options.
How to check your options
Four useful steps
The Department offers applications and repayment information through Federal Student Aid’s official repayment-plan pages. Borrowers do not need to pay a third-party company simply to apply for a federal repayment plan. Anyone close to a deadline should follow current official instructions rather than assuming Havens will file an injunction in time.
Will SAVE Forbearance Count Toward Forgiveness?
Federal Student Aid currently says that time spent in the SAVE forbearance does not count toward ordinary income-driven repayment discharge. Those months generally do not count toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) either, although certain borrowers may qualify for PSLF buyback under separate rules. Previous qualifying IDR and PSLF payments credited before the SAVE forbearance are not erased merely because a borrower changes plans.
The Havens plaintiffs argue that borrowers have been harmed by delayed repayment and forgiveness processing. They seek court relief to address some of those effects, including for borrowers who allegedly already met forgiveness thresholds. As of November 7, 2026, no Havens order has granted automatic credit or nationwide cancellation.
Havens vs Department of Education Timeline
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| February 18, 2025 | The Eighth Circuit issued a major decision restricting SAVE and related forgiveness provisions. |
| March 9, 2026 | The four borrowers filed Havens in the District of Columbia; the Eighth Circuit also reversed the mootness dismissal in the separate Missouri SAVE case. |
| March 10, 2026 | The Missouri district court entered judgment vacating the SAVE Final Rule, subject to a limited exception. |
| June 23, 2026 | The Havens plaintiffs amended their complaint and sought a preliminary injunction. |
| July 1, 2026 | Servicers began sending SAVE borrowers notices to select another eligible plan. |
| July 14, 2026 | The Department moved to dismiss the amended Havens complaint. |
| August 2026 | The parties completed major briefing on the injunction and dismissal motions. |
| November 7, 2026 | No ruling on those two major motions is reported in the latest reviewed public case tracker. |
Could the Lawsuit Change Student-Loan Payments or Forgiveness?
It could, but the effect would depend on what the judge orders. If the borrowers succeed in establishing that REPAYE must be offered, the Department may have to change its repayment processes for affected borrowers. Any ruling could also be narrower than the plaintiffs’ request, and an appeal could follow.
A favorable ruling would not necessarily recreate SAVE. REPAYE had different terms, and a decision about which regulations remain operative would not automatically settle every borrower’s loan-forgiveness status. The court also could reject the claims, leaving the current transition process in place.
For now, the practical distinction is simple. The plaintiffs want REPAYE restored, but the Department is not currently offering it. Former SAVE borrowers should follow official repayment instructions unless a later court order or agency announcement changes them.
Conclusion
Havens vs Department of Education asks whether the old REPAYE repayment regulations returned when SAVE was vacated in March 2026. Four borrowers say the Department is unlawfully refusing to operate that plan, while the government argues that the earlier court rulings do not require its restoration. The lawsuit raises important questions about federal agency authority and how repayment regulations can be changed.
As of November 7, 2026, no court order in Havens has restored REPAYE or stopped the transition of former SAVE borrowers into other plans. The borrowers’ preliminary-injunction request and the Department’s motion to dismiss remain unresolved in the latest reviewed public tracker. Until a court or the Department changes the rules, borrowers should rely on their individual servicer notices and current Federal Student Aid guidance.Frequently asked questions
What is Havens vs Department of Education about?
It is a federal lawsuit over the status of REPAYE after SAVE was vacated. Four borrowers argue that REPAYE should have returned automatically and that the Department unlawfully refuses to offer it. The Department disagrees, and the judge has not yet resolved that legal dispute.
Did Havens bring the SAVE repayment plan back?
No. SAVE ended following the March 2026 court judgment, and the Havens lawsuit has not reversed that outcome. The amended complaint mainly seeks recognition of the older REPAYE framework rather than every feature of SAVE.
Has Havens vs Department of Education been dismissed?
No final dismissal ruling is reported in the latest public tracker reviewed through November 7, 2026. The Department asked the judge to dismiss the amended complaint, but filing a motion does not decide it. The case remains listed as in progress.
Do former SAVE borrowers still have to choose another plan?
Yes, under current Federal Student Aid guidance. Most affected borrowers have 90 days from their servicer’s notice to choose an eligible option, followed by a final 30-day notice if they do not act. Havens has not produced an order suspending those requirements.
Could the Havens lawsuit lead to loan forgiveness?
The borrowers request relief for people they say already met applicable forgiveness requirements. No nationwide forgiveness order has been entered in this case. Any future relief will depend on the court’s ruling and the circumstances covered by the order.
