CFPB, Federal Agencies, State Agencies, and Attorneys General
The Connecticut district that is federal has ruled in Pennsylvania advanced schooling Assistance Agency v. Perez that needs by the Connecticut Department of Banking (DOB) to your Pennsylvania advanced schooling Assistance Agency (PHEAA) for federal education loan papers are preempted by federal legislation. PHEAA had been represented by Ballard Spahr.
PHEAA services student that is federal produced by the Department of Education (ED) underneath the Direct Loan Program pursuant to an agreement involving the ED and PHEAA. PHEAA ended up being released a student-based loan servicer permit by the DOB in June 2017. Later on in 2017, associated with the DOB’s study of PHEAA, the DOB asked for documents that are certain Direct Loans serviced by PHEAA. The demand, using the ED advising the DOB that, under PHEAA’s agreement, the ED owned the required papers together with instructed PHEAA it was forbidden from releasing them. In July 2018, PHEAA filed an action in federal court searching for a judgment that is declaratory to perhaps the DOB’s document needs had been preempted by federal legislation.
The district court ruled that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the principle of “obstacle preemption” barred the enforcement of the DOB’s licensing authority over student loan servicers, including the authority to examine the records of licensees in granting summary judgment in favor of PHEAA. As explained because of the district court, barrier preemption is just a group of conflict preemption under which a situation legislation is preempted if it “stands being a barrier towards the achievement and execution associated with complete purposes and goals of Congress.” In line with the region court, the DOB’s authority to license education loan servicers ended up being preempted as to PHEAA due to the fact application of Connecticut’s scheme that is licensing the servicing of Direct Loans by federal contractors “presents a barrier towards the federal government’s capacity to select its contractors.”
The region court rejected the DOB’s try to avoid preemption
of its document needs by arguing which they are not based entirely in the DOB’s certification authority and that the DOB had authority to have papers from entities except that licensees. The region court figured the DOB would not have authority to need papers away from its certification authority and that since the certification requirement had been preempted as to PHEAA, the DOB didn’t have the authority to need papers from PHEAA predicated on its status as a licensee.
The region court additionally determined that no matter if the DOB did have authority that is investigative PHEAA independent of their certification scheme, the DOB’s document needs would nevertheless be preempted as a case of “impossibility preemption” (an additional sounding conflict preemption that pertains when “compliance with both federal and state laws is just a physical impossibility.”)
Particularly, the federal Privacy Act prohibits federal agencies from disclosing records—including federal education loan records—containing information regarding a person with no consent that is individual’s. The Act’s prohibition is at the mercy of exceptions that are certain including one for “routine usage.” The ED took the positioning that PHEAA’s 
disclosure associated with the documents required by the DOB will never represent “routine usage.” The region court discovered that because PHEAA had contractually recognized the ED’s ownership and control on the papers, it had been limited by the ED’s interpretation regarding the Privacy Act and may not need complied because of the DOB’s document needs while additionally complying aided by the ED’s Privacy Act interpretation.
The district court enjoined the DOB from enforcing its document demands and from requiring PHEAA to submit to its licensing authority in addition to granting summary judgment in favor of PHEAA on its declaratory judgment request.