Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

4 

BIDEN v. NEBRASKA 

Opinion of the Court 

§1098bb(a)(1).1 

of 

their 

status  as  affected 

The  Secretary  may  issue  waivers  or  modifications  only
“as may be necessary to ensure” that “recipients of student
financial  assistance  under  title  IV  of  the  [Education  Act] 
who are affected individuals are not placed in a worse posi-
tion financially in relation to that financial assistance be-
cause 
individuals.” 
§1098bb(a)(2)(A).  An “affected individual” is defined, in rel-
evant part, as someone who “resides or is employed in an
area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State,
or local official in connection with a national emergency” or 
who “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of 
a war or other military operation or national emergency, as
determined by the Secretary.”  §§1098ee(2)(C)–(D).  And a 
“national emergency” for the purposes of the Act is “a na-
tional  emergency  declared  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States.”  §1098ee(4).

Immediately following the passage of the Act in 2003, the 
Secretary issued two dozen waivers and modifications ad-
dressing a handful of specific issues.  68 Fed. Reg. 69312– 
69318.  Among other changes, the Secretary waived the re-
quirement that “affected individuals” must “return or repay 
an  overpayment”  of  certain  grant  funds  erroneously  dis-
bursed by the Government, id., at 69314, and the require-
ment  that  public  service  work  must  be  uninterrupted  to 
qualify an “affected individual” for loan cancellation, id., at 
69317.  Additional  adjustments  were  made  in  2012,  with
similar limited effects.  77 Fed. Reg. 59311–59318. 

—————— 

1 Like its 2001 predecessor, the HEROES Act enjoyed virtually unani-
mous bipartisan support at the time of its enactment, passing by a 421-
to-1 vote in the House of Representatives and a unanimous voice vote in
the  Senate.    See  149  Cong.  Rec.  7952–7953  (2003);  id.,  at  20809;  147 
Cong. Rec. 20396 (2001); id., at 26292–26293.  The single dissenting Rep-
resentative  later  voiced  his  support  for  the  Act,  explaining  that  he 
“meant to vote ‘yea.’ ”  149 Cong. Rec. 8559 (statement of Rep. Miller).