Who Is The Federal Judge Who Revised The Medical Debt Mandate Of Joe Biden? Was It Legal And Here's What Could Happen Now

On 11 July 2025, Judge Sean Jordan reversed a rule introduced during Joe Biden's presidency that aimed to remove billions of pounds worth of medical debt from credit reports. This significant change in US credit policies has left millions of Americans facing the real consequences of a legal decision made by a federal judge. The same move has ignited questions about legality and what the future might hold for those affected.

The Judge Behind The Decision

Judge Sean Jordan, a federal judge in Texas, is the person responsible for the ruling. Appointed in 2019 by former President Donald Trump, Jordan's decision struck down a regulation established by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The rule, finalised in January 2025, was designed to shield approximately 15 million people from the negative impact of unpaid medical bills on their credit scores.

Jordan's legal reasoning centred on the interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 2003. He declared that the law does not grant the CFPB the authority to erase medical debt from credit reports. While the agency could encourage creditors to report data differently, it lacked the power to mandate the removal of existing medical debts. This interpretation effectively halted a policy that could have drastically improved credit scores for millions.

Was The Ruling Legal?

The legality of the decision hinges on the scope of the CFPB's authority under the law. The judge's stance was that the agency exceeded its limits by trying to implement a rule that directly removed medical debt entries. Critics argue that the CFPB's move was within its rights, citing its role in protecting consumers and regulating credit reporting standards. However, the judge's interpretation seems to align with a conservative view that agencies like the CFPB must operate strictly within the bounds set by Congress.

The ruling was not an isolated event but part of a larger political and legal tug-of-war over regulatory powers. Since the case was heard in a federal court in Texas, it sets a legal precedent that could influence similar cases across the country. Despite this, no immediate appeal has been announced, leaving the final legal standing uncertain.

What Are The Immediate Effects?

For the millions of Americans with unpaid medical bills, the ruling means the policy to remove their debt from credit reports is now void. The original plan was to prevent these debts from lowering credit scores, which can affect eligibility for loans, mortgages, and credit cards. Without the rule in place, unpaid medical bills will continue to appear on reports, potentially reducing credit scores by around 20 points on average.

This change could lead to higher borrowing costs for many, especially those already on tight budgets. It's estimated that nearly 22,000 additional mortgages might be denied or come with higher interest rates each year because of this reversal. The ruling also raises concerns about widening inequalities, as lower-income households are disproportionately impacted by medical bills and credit issues.

What Could Happen Next?

The future of medical debt reporting remains uncertain. The CFPB has the option to seek a new rule, but political and legal hurdles are high. Given the conservative leanings of the current judiciary, any new regulation might face strict scrutiny or further legal challenges. Congress could also step in to legislate a solution, mandating the removal of medical debts, but political deadlock in Washington makes this unlikely in the short term.

For now, those affected have been advised to check their credit reports regularly and consider negotiating directly with healthcare providers or seeking advice from debt aid organisations. Some states have already taken steps to limit medical debt reporting, but federal rules take precedence, and the legal landscape remains complex.