Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 25

20 

BIDEN v. NEBRASKA 

Opinion of the Court 

emissions.  Given “the ‘history and the breadth of the au-
thority that [the agency] ha[d] asserted,’ and the ‘economic 
and political significance’ of that assertion,” we found that
there was “ ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Con-
gress’ meant to confer such authority.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., 
at 17) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 
529 U. S. 120, 159–160 (2000); first alteration in original).

So too here, where the Secretary of Education claims the 
authority, on his own, to release 43 million borrowers from
their obligations to repay $430 billion in student loans.  The 
Secretary has never previously claimed powers of this mag-
nitude under the HEROES Act.  As we have already noted,
past waivers and modifications issued under the Act have
been extremely modest and narrow in scope.  The Act has 
been used only once before to waive or modify a provision
related to debt cancellation: In 2003, the Secretary waived
the  requirement  that  borrowers  seeking  loan  forgiveness 
under  the  Education  Act’s  public  service  discharge  provi-
sions “perform uninterrupted, otherwise qualifying service
for a specified length of time (for example, one year) or for 
consecutive  periods  of  time,  such  as  5  consecutive  years.” 
68 Fed. Reg. 69317.  That waiver simply eased the require-
ment that service be uninterrupted to qualify for the public 
service loan forgiveness program.  In sum, “[n]o regulation 
premised  on”  the  HEROES  Act  “has  even  begun  to  ap-
proach the size or scope” of the Secretary’s program.  Ala-
bama Assn., 594 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7).7 

Under the Government’s reading of the HEROES Act, the 

—————— 

7 The Secretary also cites a prior invocation of the HEROES Act waiv-
ing  the  requirement  that  borrowers  must  repay  prior  overpayments  of 
certain grant funds.  See Brief for United States 41; 68 Fed. Reg. 69314. 
But Congress had already limited borrower liability in such cases to ex-
clude overpayments in amounts up to “50 percent of the total grant as-
sistance  received  by  the  student”  for  the  period  at  issue,  so  the  Secre-
tary’s waiver had only a modest effect.  20 U. S. C. §1091b(b)(2)(C)(i)(II). 
And that waiver simply held the Government responsible for its own er-
rors when it had mistakenly disbursed undeserved grant funds.