Sweet v. McMahon* Is About Discharge, Not Forgiveness
Why Precision Matters in Describing Borrower Defense and the Sweet Settlement
As a post-class member in Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona), I’ve been concerned by the way this case is being framed in recent media coverage. Many outlets continue to describe Sweet as a case about “student loan forgiveness.” That is inaccurate, and it obscures both the legal foundation of the case and the lived experiences of thousands of borrowers who were defrauded by their schools.
This page outlines why that framing is misleading, and why it matters.
Download: Printable PDF version of this article
Forgiveness Is a Policy Decision. Discharge Is a Legal Remedy.
In Borrower Defense cases, discharge means the loan is legally unenforceable because it was the result of fraud or misconduct. The borrower is not being given anything; they are being released from a debt that should never have existed.
Calling this “forgiveness” blurs the difference between policy-based generosity and legal accountability.
The Sweet Settlement Was a Judicial Enforcement, Not a Policy Preference
The Sweet settlement resolved a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Education (DOE) unlawfully delayed or mishandled Borrower Defense claims. The resulting relief — including automatic discharge if the DOE missed deadlines — was not a matter of generosity or discretion. It was a court-approved settlement, crafted to remedy past harm and prevent future delay.
Automatic relief provisions were included not as a gift, but as a consequence if the DOE failed again.
Mislabeling the Case Creates Public Confusion
Calling Sweet a case about “forgiveness” obscures several important truths:
Borrowers are asserting legal defenses, not seeking handouts.
The automatic discharges are penalties for noncompliance, not policy expansions.
The “cost” of discharging fraudulent loans is not a taxpayer giveaway. It is the correction of a legally invalid debt.
This Is About Enforcing a Judgment the DOE Already Agreed To
The current dispute is not about whether to cancel more loans. It is about whether the Department will comply with the terms of a judgment it helped negotiate and the court approved.
Precision matters. Especially in legal cases involving administrative accountability, consumer protection, and separation of powers.
Author Note
Dr. Erin Findley is a licensed psychologist and a post-class member in Sweet v. McMahon. Although not a legal scholar, she has engaged extensively with several named plaintiffs and crafted this analysis with their input, drawing on guidance from the legal team. Her aim is to support accurate public understanding of the case and the nature of Borrower Defense discharge.
For media or advocacy inquiries, you may reach Dr. Findley at info@erinfindley.com
