⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears Cockrell’s appeal against Navient, together with a related appeal by Anthony. Cockrell says Navient retroactively placed his student loan into forbearance, then added purportedly unpaid interest to his principal balance. He maintains that his loan was current during the period involved. Forbearance temporarily pauses or reduces required payments; it does not erase the debt. Capitalization adds unpaid interest to the principal balance, which can make the borrower pay interest on a larger amount. Cockrell sued under California’s Unfair Competition Law, seeking money back and an order stopping the practice. His complaint was dismissed, and he is appealing that dismissal. The central issue is preemption: when federal law displaces a state-law claim. Express preemption comes from Congress’s explicit language. Conflict preemption can apply when a state-law claim would obstruct the federal scheme. Section 1098g exempts covered student loans from state-law disclosure requirements. The parties disagree about whether these claims really demand different disclosures or instead challenge loan charges that were unlawful regardless of notice. The panel repeatedly discusses Chae, an earlier Ninth Circuit decision about different student-loan servicing practices. It held some claims expressly preempted as disclosure challenges and other claims barred because they conflicted with the federal framework. The borrowers will contend that their cases enforce federal standards rather than change them. You will also hear about section 1083. It says a lender’s failure to provide information required by that section cannot itself support a claim for civil damages. The panel will ask how that provision affects the borrowers’ theory. This hearing concerns whether the lawsuits can proceed, not a jury verdict deciding that Navient’s conduct was lawful.

Cockrell v. Navient Corporation (No. 25-4222) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 21, 2026.