CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
BANNUM, INC; BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC,
Respondents.
   Nos. 21-2664/2690
On Motion for Attorney Fees.
Nos. 07-CA-207685; 07-CA-211090; 07-CA-215356.
Decided and Filed: May 17, 2024
Before: MOORE, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

PER CURIAM. On February 23, 2024, we held Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC (collectively “Bannum”) in civil contempt and ordered Bannum to pay to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) reasonable attorney fees. The NLRB now seeks $14,872.80 in attorney fees. For the following reasons, we GRANT in full the NLRB’s request, and we order Bannum to pay the NLRB attorney fees in the amount of $14,872.80.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY; CATO INSTITUTE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MIGUEL CARDONA, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, in his official capacity; RICHARD CORDRAY, Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, in his official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 23-1736
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:23-cv-11906—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: March 21, 2024
Decided and Filed: May 17, 2024
Before: SILER, COLE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Many people consider a college education the ticket to the American dream. Some take out student loans to get the ticket. Paying back those loans can turn into a nightmare. Congress and the U.S. Department of Education stepped in to help by creating income-driven student-loan repayment plans and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Various problems arose with these plans, including student-loan servicers steering borrowers into postponing or reducing their student-loan payments for extended periods of time. In response, the Department of Education announced, in April 2022 and July 2023, a one-time account adjustment that would count months or years that borrowers spent in excessive forbearance status toward debt forgiveness. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Cato Institute did not take kindly to the Department of Education’s action, so they sued to stop it. The question presented is whether Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged that they suffered an injury in fact resulting from the adjustment based on competitor standing and deprivation of a procedural right. We hold that it does not. We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.