Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 68

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

21 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

of ” language is a “wafer-thin reed” for the Secretary to rely 
on  because  it  appears  in  a  “humdrum  reporting  require-
ment.”  Ante, at 17.  But the adjectives are by far the best
part of that response.  It is perfectly true that the language 
instructs the Secretary to “include” his new “terms and con-
ditions” when he provides notice of his “waivers or modifi-
cations.”  §1098bb(b)(2).  But  that  is  because  the  statute 
contemplates that there will be new terms and conditions 
to report.  In other words, the statute proceeds on the prem-
ise  that  the  usual  waiver  or  modification  will,  contra  the 
majority,  involve  adding  “new  substantive”  provisions. 
Ante, at 17.  The humdrum reporting requirement thus con-
firms the expansive extent of the Secretary’s waiver/modi-
fication authority.

The  majority’s  opposing  construction  makes  the  Act  in-
consequential.  The Secretary emerges with no ability to re-
spond  to  large-scale  emergencies  in  commensurate  ways. 
The creation of any “novel and fundamentally different loan
forgiveness program” is off the table.  Ante, at 14.  So, for 
example, the Secretary could not cancel student loans held
by  victims  of  the  hypothetical  terrorist  attack  described 
above.  See supra, at 16–17.  That too would involve “the 
introduction of a whole new regime” by way of “draft[ing]
new substantive” conditions for discharging loans.  Ante, at 
17–18.  And  under  the  majority’s  analysis,  new  loan  for-
bearance policies are similarly out of bounds.  When COVID 
struck,  Secretary  DeVos  immediately  suspended  loan  re-
payments and interest accrual for all federally held student
loans.  See ante, at 5.  The majority claims it is not deciding
whether that action was lawful.  Ante, at 18, n. 5.  Which is 
all well and good, except that under the majority’s reason-
ing, how could it not be?  The suspension too offered a sig-
nificant new benefit, and to an even greater number of bor-
rowers.  (Indeed,  for  many  borrowers,  it  was  worth  much
more  than  the  current  plan’s  $10,000  discharge.)    So  the