Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Taylor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  eligible  for  loan  for-
giveness—but  only  $10,000,  rather  than  the  maximum
$20,000.  That  is  because,  despite  now  having  an  annual
income of less than $25,000, he never received a Pell Grant. 
See App. 183, Complaint ¶61.  Thus, individuals with an-
nual income up to five times greater than his are eligible for 
twice as much loan forgiveness as he is if they ever received 
a Pell Grant. 

Accordingly, both Brown and Taylor object to certain ele-
ments of the Plan—Brown to its limitation to federally held 
loans, and Taylor to the additional relief it doles out based 
on prior Pell Grants, with no regard for current income.  Be-
cause  the  Department  did  not  engage  in  negotiated  rule-
making or notice and comment, however, Brown and Taylor 
had no formal opportunity to voice their views on the Plan
prior to its adoption.

Alleging  that  the  law  entitles  them  to  such  an  oppor-
tunity, Brown and Taylor brought this action in the U. S.
District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  Texas.    Their 
one-count  complaint  claims  that  the  Plan  is  unlawful  be-
cause  the  Department  promulgated  it  without  observing 
the requirements of negotiated rulemaking and notice and 
comment.  As a result, they claim, we should “[v]acate and 
set aside the” Plan under 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(D).  App. 186.

Brown and Taylor recognize that the HEROES Act sup-
plies  exemptions  from  these  procedural  requirements. 
They argue, however, that an action of the Secretary falls 
within these exemptions only if it is substantively author-
ized by the Act; the Secretary, in their view, cannot merely 
invoke the “HEROES Act” to bypass negotiated rulemaking
and notice and comment.  According to Brown and Taylor,
the Act does not substantively authorize the Plan, and so
the Secretary was required to follow these procedures. 

The  District  Court  agreed  with  Brown  and  Taylor—in 
part.  It rebuffed their central argument that the HEROES