⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit hears oral argument in In re Stone. The case arises from a bankruptcy filed in the mid-1990s. Barbara Stone discharged certain student loans under a provision of bankruptcy law that existed before 1998, which allowed student loans to be discharged if they had been in repayment for more than seven years before the bankruptcy petition. Decades later, the Department of Education continued to collect on those loans through treasury offsets. Stone moved for a finding of civil contempt, arguing the collection violated the 1994 discharge injunction. The bankruptcy court agreed the loans met the seven-year test but held that Stone should have filed a separate adversary proceeding to obtain a judgment declaring the loans dischargeable. The court also found the Department had a fair ground of doubt under the Taggart standard, which protects creditors from contempt sanctions when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing their conduct did not violate a discharge order. On appeal, Stone challenges both rulings. The core legal issues are whether a debtor must affirmatively obtain a judgment when a student loan falls outside a statutory exception to discharge, and whether the Department's continued collection was protected by a fair ground of doubt given the facts and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's recent decision in In re Irigoyen.

In re Stone (No. 26-1009) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.