ShareThis Page
World

Democratic AGs win lawsuit against U.S. Education Secretary DeVos

| Thursday, Sept. 13, 2018, 9:51 a.m.
Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia have won a case against U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos over her decision to suspend rules meant to protect students from abuse by for-profit colleges.
Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia have won a case against U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos over her decision to suspend rules meant to protect students from abuse by for-profit colleges.

BOSTON — Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia have won a case against U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos over her decision to suspend rules meant to protect students from abuse by for-profit colleges.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, argued DeVos violated rule-making laws when she announced a decision last year to delay so-called borrower defense to repayment rules finalized under President Barack Obama and scheduled to take effect in July 2017.

DeVos had argued the rules created “a muddled process that’s unfair to students and schools.”

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who led the lawsuit, called Wednesday’s decision “a victory for every family defrauded by a predatory for-profit school.”

The court said the Department of Education’s rationale for suspending the rules was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Chris Pastrick is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Chris at 724-226-4697, cpastrick@tribweb.com or via Twitter @CPastrickTrib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me