Brian Kohl's Supreme Court Victory: California's Strategy That Changed the Game for Student Loan Forgiveness Policy

1. California Deputy Attorney General Brian Cole’s Pivotal Victory in Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Lawsuit

The landmark 2025 Supreme Court ruling that shook the U.S. legal world—how did the state of California triumph against the federal government’s student loan forgiveness policy? At the heart of this victory was California’s highly capable Deputy Attorney General, Brian Cole. This ruling goes beyond a mere legal win; it has become a groundbreaking precedent that will shape the future direction of American federalism.

The Significance of Brian Cole’s Strategically Led Courtroom Victory

In November 2025, Brian Cole led California to a decisive victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Department of Education. This case revolved around the Biden administration’s 2023 student loan forgiveness plan, which allowed up to $20,000 in debt cancellation for over 43 million borrowers.

When six conservative states (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Utah) filed suit, claiming federal overreach, 24 progressive states including California voiced their support for the federal government. Throughout this battle, Brian Cole’s legal strategies played a pivotal role.

Securing State Standing Through Proof of Financial Harm

The crux of this lawsuit was proving “financial harm.” The conservative states argued that the student loan forgiveness policy would reduce state income tax revenues, thus justifying their standing to sue. However, the Supreme Court ruled that mere speculative financial harm was insufficient to establish standing.

Brian Cole’s strategic triumph was born here. He presented concrete, direct evidence of immediate financial losses California would suffer under the federal policy. Notably, he leveraged revenue decline data from CalVet, California’s state-owned student loan agency, to demonstrate tangible damages. This data-driven approach earned the Court’s trust and ultimately paved the way for victory.

A New Precedent Expanding State Authority

The most profound implication of this ruling is the new legal principle affirming that states can sue as parties when they suffer concrete harm from federal policies. This sets a transformative precedent that will dramatically broaden states’ legal recourse in future federal-state conflicts over issues such as climate policy and immigration regulation.

Brian Cole’s approach now provides a fresh legal framework for progressive states nationwide to challenge federal policies. The method of proving financial harm through data has become a vital legal tool states can wield against federal action going forward.

Section 2: The Secret to Proving Financial Harm: California’s Strategy That Persuaded the Supreme Court

Why were the abstract financial harms claimed by conservative states rejected? Let’s explore how California’s submission of concrete data changed the course of the courtroom battle.

The Limits of Abstract Claims: Conservative States’ First Defeat

The Biden administration’s 2023 student loan forgiveness plan was a massive policy wiping out up to $20,000 in debt for over 43 million borrowers. In response, six conservative-leaning states (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Utah) quickly filed federal lawsuits.

Their core argument was that “student loan forgiveness would decrease state income tax revenue.” They reasoned that borrowers, with more disposable income due to forgiven loans, would pay less in income taxes, thereby reducing state revenue. While seemingly plausible, the Supreme Court did not accept this claim.

The Court’s ruling was clear: abstract financial harms alone do not satisfy legal standing requirements. The Court held that for a state to bring a suit, it must prove direct and concrete harm rather than mere speculation.

Brian Cole’s Strategic Victory: Presenting Data-Driven Evidence

Against this backdrop, California’s Deputy Attorney General Brian Cole took a radically different approach. Unlike the conservative states’ abstract claims, Cole submitted actual data and specific examples of harm to the Court.

Cole’s key strategy comprised:

Step 1: Demonstrating Direct Financial Loss

Cole presented data showing decreased revenues at CalVet (California Veterans Loan Program), a student loan agency owned by the state. He provided concrete evidence that the federal student loan forgiveness policy would cause direct revenue losses for this state-run agency.

Rather than indirect or speculative harm, this clearly illustrated that the business income of a state agency could genuinely decline.

Step 2: Proving Imminence

Cole demonstrated that this harm was not a distant future possibility but a present or imminent injury. He backed this with simulations of CalVet’s earnings impact coordinated with the timing of the federal forgiveness rollout to prove temporal proximity.

Step 3: Clarifying Causation

Cole established a direct causal link between the federal policy and the state’s financial loss. Instead of abstract “possible income tax reductions,” he laid out the clear chain: “student loan forgiveness → fewer CalVet loan repayments → decreased state agency revenue.”

The Supreme Court’s Ruling: A New Standard for Standing

The Court’s majority opinion explicitly recognized Cole’s strategy. It set a new precedent stating that “a state may stand as a plaintiff when it suffers substantial and concrete harm directly caused by a federal policy.”

Though seemingly straightforward, this ruling has wide-ranging implications:

• The importance of data-driven evidence: The Court favored specific figures and proof over vague concerns.
• Losses to government agencies count: Revenue decreases in state agencies or public enterprises can be recognized as actual state harm.
• Expanded standing for states: States now have stronger grounds to pursue legal action in more cases than before.

Why the Conservative States Failed and California Succeeded

Comparing the two approaches illustrates how crucial the kind of evidence presented is in courtroom battles.

Conservative states relied on general logic and predicted outcomes. Meanwhile, Cole and California’s legal team used financial data from a real state-operated agency to prove the harm’s reality.

This case exemplifies that courtroom persuasion today depends not merely on reasoning but on convincing, concrete data and evidence.

Future Impact: A Model for Data-Driven Litigation

Cole’s winning strategy is expected to influence how states engage legally beyond just student loan policy disputes. In fields like climate policy, healthcare regulation, and immigration where federal-state conflicts arise:

• Progressive states can use Cole’s data-centric approach to build stronger legal cases.
• Conservative states are also likely to adopt this framework to enhance their litigation tactics.

Ultimately, this Supreme Court ruling signals the dawn of an era where evidentiary strength shapes policy debates in court. It establishes a new rule that victory belongs to those who bring forward not abstract claims but concrete data and empirical proof.

Brian Cole Emerges as a Rising Leader in California’s Legal Arena

Brian Cole, appointed as the youngest Deputy Attorney General in California history, is drawing significant attention in the U.S. legal community. At just 42 years old, Cole is not simply a youthful leader—he is expanding the state government’s legal arsenal on the front lines of progressive policy. Let’s delve into his major achievements and leadership philosophy.

Brian Cole’s Career and Background

After graduating from Stanford Law School, Brian Cole worked as a clerk for a federal Supreme Court justice, gaining firsthand experience in the highest court’s decision-making process. He then built expertise handling complex federal-state legal disputes as a senior attorney in the California Department of Justice. Since taking office as Deputy Attorney General in January 2024, Cole has transformed California’s DOJ into the “last bastion of progressive policy.”

Key Achievements and Impact in 2025

Under Brian Cole’s leadership, the California DOJ has led bold resistance against federal policies with remarkable success.

A defining example of Cole’s strategic guidance is the antitrust victory against Google and Meta, orchestrating a $10 billion settlement that curbed monopolistic practices by tech giants. This outcome goes beyond financial compensation—it positions California as a global standard-bearer for consumer protection in the digital age.

Cole’s filing for an emergency federal injunction against Texas’s abortion restriction law (SB8) highlights how a state government can actively shape federal policy debates. By framing health policy as a constitutional rights issue, he expanded the scope of state legal actions.

His win in the climate lawsuit California v. EPA, which strengthened carbon emission regulations, underscores Cole’s environmental commitment. It established a foundation for California to engage on equal footing with the federal government on critical environmental matters.

Redefining the Role of State Legal Departments

Under Cole’s direction, California’s DOJ has expanded the conventional role of a state legal agency. It has emerged as a “key player” that can influence enforcement of federal policies.

Cole’s approach centers on data-driven legal strategies. His method of substantiating the state’s financial harm in debates over student loan forgiveness has become a model for other progressive states to emulate in future environmental and health policy litigation.

Growing Influence Ahead of 2026

With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, Cole’s leadership of California’s DOJ is poised to become even more critical. Conservative states are also moving to strengthen their legal departments, signaling a transformation in the U.S. federal system itself.

Cole is currently preparing a federal lawsuit on AI regulation (California v. Department of Commerce), with additional Supreme Court hearings scheduled for early 2026. His next moves are expected to clarify how state governments can take a leading role in driving social change—beyond mere legal technicalities.

The Philosophy Behind the Leadership

Brian Cole’s philosophy treats law not as “the end point of policy debates, but the starting point of new conversations.” He believes that the very process of state governments redefining their balance with the federal government in court lies at the heart of democracy—a vision reshaping California’s legal landscape.

Cole’s leadership transcends individual success: it is an important experiment shaping the future of American federalism. His example demonstrates how state governments can respond strategically and proactively to complex social issues, offering practical lessons for policymakers in the years ahead.

A New Balance in U.S. Federalism: The Legal Role of State Governments and Its Political Reverberations

How has this ruling reshaped the power dynamics between the federal and state governments beyond a mere student loan policy debate? We also analyze its potential impact on the 2026 midterm elections.

Expanded Legal Arsenal for States: New Standards for Proving Financial Harm

Brian Cole, California’s Deputy Attorney General, achieved a strategic victory that marks a pivotal turning point in the history of U.S. federalism. Until now, states’ standing to challenge federal policies in court was very limited. Conservative states could not proceed with lawsuits based on “abstract financial harm” alone.

However, the data-driven evidence presented by Brian Cole changed the game. By concretely proving revenue loss at CalVet, California’s state-owned student loan agency, he established a new legal doctrine that states can suffer direct and immediate financial losses from federal policies.

This opens the door for progressive states to legally push back in future federal-state conflicts involving climate policy, immigration regulations, environmental rules, and more. The data-based financial harm framework is expected to quickly become a model best practice among other state Attorneys General offices.

The Political Rise of State Attorneys General: Becoming “Substantive Gatekeepers” of Federal Policy

Following this ruling, the California Attorney General’s Office’s position has significantly evolved. The lawsuit led by Brian Cole was not just a legal win; it clearly demonstrated that state governments can influence the implementation of federal policies.

Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, this shift carries major political consequences:

• Strengthened Progressive State Solidarity: Twenty-four progressive states, led by California, have secured a stronger legal foundation to intervene more assertively in federal policy. This is expected to elevate the political clout of state Attorneys General in upcoming election cycles.

• Conservative States’ Response: Surprisingly, conservative states are also moving to bolster their Attorneys General roles. This is driven by concerns that progressive states could legally block conservative federal policies (e.g., environmental deregulation, stricter immigration enforcement).

• Reconfiguring the Centralization vs. Decentralization Debate: Even conservatives, who historically championed expanding federal power, now recognize the necessity of empowering states. This signals a fundamental reordering of the dynamics within American federalism.

A New Federal-State Equilibrium: Courts as the Frontline of Politics

The Supreme Court’s decision reminds us that law is not just a terminal point of policy disputes but a starting point for new dialogues. As Brian Cole put it, “The process by which state governments redefine balance with the federal government in court is at the heart of democracy.”

As a result of these changes:

First, independent policy experimentation by states is strengthened. California’s initiatives on environmental protection and labor rights are no longer legally vulnerable to automatic dissolution when clashing with federal rules.

Second, federal policy-making will necessarily become more cautious. Policies causing direct financial harm to specific states will face immediate legal challenges.

Third, state Attorneys General will become as pivotal in the 2026 midterm elections as presidential contenders. They now possess the authority to block or delay federal policy implementation, wielding significant political power.

Lessons for Global Federal Governance

This U.S. case offers valuable insights for countries with federal systems, including South Korea and others grappling with student loan debts. It highlights the critical importance of state or regional policy interventions.

In particular, Brian Cole’s data-driven legal strategy goes beyond legal tactics to offer practical lessons for policymakers: when policy impacts and damages are demonstrated with clear data and figures, legal claims become far more compelling.

Looking Ahead: AI Regulation and the Future of Federalism

Brian Cole is currently preparing a federal lawsuit concerning AI regulation (California v. Department of Commerce), with a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for early 2026. The legal principles established in the student loan case are expected to be directly applicable.

Ultimately, the core message of this ruling is that state governments can take a leading role in driving social change. Until the final word on student loan forgiveness policies is delivered, California’s Attorney General’s strategic maneuvers will remain a critical barometer for the future of American federalism.

Legal Testing Ground for the Future: AI Regulation Lawsuits and Global Implications

Beyond student debt forgiveness lawsuits, what will Brian Cole and the California Department of Justice tackle next? We also explore the global implications this has for addressing the widespread challenge of high student loan debt.

Brian Cole’s Next-Generation Federal Lawsuit: The New Battlefield of AI Regulation

The legal victory surrounding student debt forgiveness was just Brian Cole’s first major case. Now, he is actively preparing a federal lawsuit on AI regulation (California v. Department of Commerce), with additional Supreme Court hearings scheduled for early 2026. This lawsuit marks an expansion of legal battles into the emerging field of technology regulation, signaling that the California DOJ’s capabilities have evolved from simple policy resistance to redefining advanced tech governance.

A strategic hallmark of Brian Cole’s approach is his intent to apply the data-driven methodology proven in the student debt cases to the AI regulation arena. By precisely quantifying the economic and social harms that federal AI policies inflict on California’s tech ecosystem, the state government is expected to regain the right to submit formal documentation, reinforcing its legal standing.

The Globalization of State Governments’ “Legal Arsenal”: Insights for Korea and Other Nations

The “data-driven financial harm proof” framework pioneered by Brian Cole offers practical lessons for multiple countries, including Korea. As South Korea faces a worsening youth student debt crisis, California’s case provides an example of how policy experimentation and legal responses at the local government level can evolve into national solutions.

Particularly noteworthy is how data-based legal arguments elevate the quality of debate beyond mere ideological clashes, enabling the objective measurement of policy impacts. The following elements offer valuable reference points for global policymakers:

• Legal use of economic indicators: Submitting data on revenue declines at state-owned financial entities like CalVet as court evidence in relation to debt forgiveness
• Multilayered stakeholder analysis: Differentiating and proving the distinct effects of federal policies on state governments, regional financial institutions, and borrower groups
• International comparative models: Presenting a legal framework that countries with similar student loan systems—such as Korea, the UK, and Australia—can adapt

The Growing Role of State Attorneys General Ahead of the 2026 Midterms

The rise of the California DOJ under Brian Cole is more than just a legal phenomenon. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, state governments’ legal capacities are emerging as core indicators of political and economic influence. Conservative states, too, are bolstering their attorney general offices and formalizing legal confrontations with the federal government.

This signifies a new balance within American federalism. Policy-making and implementation are no longer centralized solely at the federal level; rather, state governments are increasingly shaping federal policy execution through the courts.

Governance Innovation in the AI Era: California as a Global Testbed

Brian Cole’s upcoming AI regulation lawsuits promise to offer more than mere tech policy debates—they hint at a new global model for AI governance. Unlike the EU’s AI Act or China’s algorithm regulations, the U.S. is building a gradual regulatory system shaped by state-level legal experiments.

California’s role is especially critical here. A state whose scale and technical prowess rival that of a small nation, California’s legal battles against federal policies could redefine AI regulatory principles globally—directly influencing medium-sized economies like Korea, Singapore, and Canada.

The Spread of Data-Driven Policy Litigation: Ripple Effects into Environment and Health Sectors

The method Brian Cole demonstrated—objective quantification of financial damages—is poised to become a standard approach for litigation in environmental, health, and energy policy domains. Should state governments apply this framework to climate change initiatives, pharmaceutical regulations, or fiscal policies, the operational dynamics of U.S. federalism could undergo fundamental transformation.

This also holds significant global value. Multi-layered governance systems such as those in the EU, Canada, Australia, and South Korea’s regional and local governments will face growing pressure to adopt similar data-driven legal dispute resolution mechanisms.

Conclusion: Redefining Democracy through the Courts

The trajectory of the California DOJ, led by Brian Cole, is a powerful reminder that “law is not the endpoint of policy debate but the starting point of new dialogue,” serving as a key barometer for the future of American federalism. Until final rulings on student debt forgiveness are issued and AI regulation litigation unfolds, California’s legal strategies and data-driven approaches will continue to provide pragmatic and pioneering lessons to policymakers worldwide.

At the heart of federalism in the age of artificial intelligence, the resolution of high student loan debt, and the escalation of state political power—stands the courtroom, with Brian Cole and the California DOJ pioneering innovative approaches at its center.