Update: Judge Gilliam Denies DOE’s Request to Change the Deadlines
As of today (2/24/2026), Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. has issued his first ruling in the Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona) case. (read the full order here and the press release from Plaintiff’s counsel, Project on Predatory Student Lending here)
Judge Gilliam has denied the Department of Education’s second attempt to change the Sweet v. McMahon settlement deadlines.
For those of us in the post-class group, this is HUGE.
What the Court just did
Judge Gilliam refused to extend the January and April adjudication deadlines Judge Alsup set.
Judge Gilliam ruled that DOE did not show “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b).
He noted that DOE has known for years how large the post-class group is.
He stated clearly that no further Rule 60(b) motions will be entertained.
Let’s translate that.
In this context, “extraordinary circumstances” means something truly unexpected or outside the government’s control.
Waiting until just before the deadlines to say, “This is a big group that we mostly didn’t work on for the three years of the settlement process, so we need more time,” isn’t extraordinary. It’s just late.
And the judge was not persuaded.
What this means
The district court is done reconsidering deadline changes.
The settlement remains fully in effect as written and previously enforced (including the modification Judge Alsup made to the deadlines on December 11, 2025).
For Exhibit C post-class members whose applications were still undecided as of January 28, the automatic relief provision remains operative.
For non-Exhibit C post-class members whose applications are still undecided, the deadline remains April 15, 2026.
What shifted legally
Before today, DOE was still trying to “reopen the clock” at the district court level. But as of today’s ruling, that door is closed.
Now, DOE’s only remaining option is to appeal to the Ninth Circuit and request an emergency stay. But, as of this writing, no appeal has been filed. (Updated 2/24/2026 at 7:34 PM Pacific time - I just received notice that the DOE has submitted their appeal to the 9th Circuit. More details as soon as I have them!)
That doesn’t mean they won’t try. Given the history of this case, I fully expect that they will.
Where I think we are in the process
Back in the day, when I was running half-marathons regularly, I learned there’s a point around mile 11 where everything in your body says, “Absolutely not.” It’s often called the “bite me” mile.
You’re tired. You’re annoyed. You’re close enough to the finish to feel it — but not close enough to be done. That’s often where things get scrappy.
I think that’s exactly where we are in this litigation.
If there’s one thing I want to encourage you to remember, it’s this: pushback near a deadline can often signal proximity to the end — not distance from it.
So, hang in there.
What you can do right now
Document your current status.
If you haven’t yet made an informational note (NOT a dispute!) on your credit file with the three credit bureaus about the existence of the settlement and your legal right to relief, this would be a good time to do that.
Stay in administrative forbearance if you are in it.
If you want more details about any of those steps, you can find them here: UPDATE for Argosy – SF Bay Area Borrowers (Sweet v. Cardona / McMahon)
Above all, remember this:
If you qualified for automatic relief on January 28, your legal right to that relief was granted to you the moment the deadline passed. The existence of your legal rights do not depend on the DOE acting on them. (Although, trust me, I understand it’s hard to wait for it to happen!)
Legal reality and administrative processing don’t move at the same speed.
What not to do (yet)
Don’t panic if balances still show. That’s expected at this stage.
Don’t file premature credit disputes.
Don’t flood the ombudsman’s office or servicers with calls asking for immediate updates.
Processing lags behind court rulings. Acting too early often creates noise, not speed.
Bottom Line
This is a significant procedural win for the post-class at the district court level, and our legal footing today is even firmer than it was yesterday.
If DOE files an appeal, that may open a new phase of litigation. Until then, the settlement, and the settlement’s deadlines, stand.
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 information 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
