UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUl\/IBIA
)
STUDENT LOAN SERVICING )
ALLIANCE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-0640 (PLF)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t ads )
)
Defendants. )
_ )
OPINION
This case involves the important question of Whether the District of Columbia
- and inferentially other states - may require student loan servicers Who manage federally-owned
and federally-guaranteed student loans to obtain a license to operate in the District of Columbia
in an effort to protect the consumers of those loans. Plaintiff Student Loan Servicing Alliance
(“SLSA”) maintains that the District of Columbia may not regulate such servicers because
Congress has preempted the field of regulating student loans servicers or has otherwise
preempted the law at issue - D.C. Law 21-214 and the Final Rules. SLSA’s position is
supported by the United States, which has filed a statement of interest in this case.
Defendants -the Di~strict of Columbia; Stephen C. Taylor, Commissioner,
Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking; and Charles A. Burt, Student Loan and
Foreclosure Ombudsman - have moved [Dkt. 'No. 21] to dismiss SLSA’s amended complaint or,
in the alternative, for summary judgment SLSA filed a cross-motion [Dkt. No. 27] for summary
judgment. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ papers, the relevant legal authorities, the
oral arguments of counsel at a motions hearing on October 23, 2018, and the entire record in this
case, the_ Court will deny defendants’ motion to dismiss; grant defendants’ motion for summary
judgment in part; and grant in part and deny in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.l
l The Court has reviewed the following filings in resolving the pending motions:
SLSA’s Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) [Dkt No. 19]; Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or,
in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (“Def. MTD”) [Dkt No. 21]; Defendants’ Statement
of Material Facts As To Which There ls No Genuine Dispute (“Def. Facts”) [Dkt. No. 21-3];
SLSA’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl. Cr-MSJ”) [Dkt No. 27-1]; SLSA’s
Statement of Facts (“Pl. Facts”) [Dkt. No. 27-3]; Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to
SLSA’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of l\/lotion to Dismiss (“Def.
Opp.”) [Dkt. No. 30]; SLSA’s Reply in Support of Cross-l\/lotion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.
Reply”) [Dkt. No. 33]; Defendants’ Supplemental Filing in Response to the Court’s October 10,
2018 Minute Order (“Def. IG Immunity”) [Dkt. No. 34]; SLSA’s Supplemental Brief on
Application of the lntergovernmental lmmunity Doctrine (“Pl. IG lmmunity”) [Dkt. No. 35];
United States’ Statement of Interest (“U.S. SOI”) [Dkt. No. 20]; Amicus Brief by Lawyers’
Committee, et al. (“Am. Br. Lawyers’ Committee) [Dkt. No. 24]; Amicus-Brief by State of New
York, et al. (“Am. Br. NYS”) (Dl