Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Syllabus 

v. Burwell, 576 U. S. 473, 485. 

All this leads the Court to conclude that “[t]he basic and consequen-
tial tradeoffs” inherent in a mass debt cancellation program “are ones
that  Congress  would  likely  have  intended  for  itself.”    West  Virginia, 
597 U. S., at ___.  In such circumstances, the Court has required the
Secretary to “point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ ” to justify the
challenged  program.  Id.,  at  ___,  ___  (quoting  Utility  Air  Regulatory 
Group v.  EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324).  And as explained, the HEROES
Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan when examined 
using  the  ordinary  tools  of  statutory  interpretation—let  alone  “clear 
congressional authorization” for such a program.  Pp. 19–25. 

Reversed and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, 
ALITO,  GORSUCH,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ.,  joined.  BARRETT,  J., 
filed a concurring opinion.  KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which 
SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.