Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

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

1 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–506 
_________________ 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
NEBRASKA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED 
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[June 30, 2023] 

JUSTICE  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR  and 

JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. 

In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper, lim-

ited role in our Nation’s governance. 

Some 20 years ago, Congress enacted legislation, called 
the HEROES Act, authorizing the Secretary of Education 
to provide relief to student-loan borrowers when a national 
emergency struck.  The Secretary’s authority was bounded: 
He  could  do  only  what  was  “necessary”  to  alleviate  the 
emergency’s impact on affected borrowers’ ability to repay
their student loans.  20 U. S. C. §1098bb(a)(2).  But within 
that bounded area, Congress gave discretion to the Secre-
tary.  He could “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory 
provision”  applying  to  federal  student-loan  programs,  in-
cluding  provisions  relating  to  loan  repayment  and  for-
giveness.  And in so doing, he could replace the old provi-
sions  with  new  “terms  and  conditions.”  §§1098bb(a)(1), 
(b)(2).  The Secretary, that is, could give the relief that was
needed, in the form he deemed most appropriate, to coun-
teract the effects of a national emergency on borrowers’ ca-
pacity to repay.  That may have been a good idea, or it may 
have  been a  bad  idea.    Either  way,  it  was  what  Congress 
said. 

When COVID hit, two Secretaries serving two different