Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. BROWN 

Opinion of the Court 

Island Institute, 555 U. S. 488, 496–497 (2009). 

We emphasized this requirement in Summers, where we 
were  asked  to  review  U. S.  Forest  Service  regulations  ex-
empting  certain  minor  land-management  decisions  from
the  typical  notice-and-comment  process.  Id.,  at  490–491. 
The plaintiffs in that case did not have any “concrete plans 
to observe nature in [a] specific area” affected by actions the 
Service took pursuant to this exemption, id., at 497, and we 
therefore  held  that  they  lacked  standing,  id.,  at  494–497. 
As we put it, the “deprivation of a procedural right without
some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation—
a procedural right in vacuo—is insufficient to create Article 
III standing.”  Id., at 496. 

B 
Before applying this framework, we pause to explain both 
respondents’ theory of standing and the substance of their 
claim, which have not always been readily ascertainable—
or consistently described—during this litigation. 

Upon  initial  inspection,  respondents’  merits  theory  ap-
pears to be in tension with the possibility that the Depart-
ment could redress their injury.  Respondents argue simul-
taneously (1) that the Department might have treated them 
more generously if it had solicited their input in developing 
the Plan and (2) that the Department lacks substantive au-
thority  to  promulgate  broad-based  loan  forgiveness  under 
the HEROES Act.  It would be quite odd for Brown and Tay-
lor to complain about being unable to seek an increase in
the  scope  of  an  administrative  action  that  they  think  the
Department cannot lawfully take.

Respondents belatedly attempted to address this strange
feature of their argument.  Their complaint does not say a 
word  about  standing.    But  in  their  reply  supporting  their
motion in the District Court for an injunction against the 
Plan, they ventured a brief attempt to explain their position
on this threshold issue.  They insisted that the Department