Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

of the Plan does not directly affect respondents’ ability to obtain loan
relief under the HEA; the Department’s authority to grant loan relief 
under the HEA (upon which the Court does not pass) is not affected by
whether the Plan is lawful or unlawful.  Any connection between loan
forgiveness under the two statutes is speculative.  

While it is true that the Court’s procedural-standing case law toler-
ates  uncertainty  over  whether  observing  certain  procedures  would 
have led to (caused) a different substantive outcome, see Lujan, 504 
U. S., at 572, n. 7, the causal uncertainty here is not so limited.  In-
stead, the uncertainty concerns whether the substantive decisions the 
Department  has  made  regarding  the  Plan  under  the  HEROES  Act 
have  a  causal  relationship  with  other substantive decisions  respond-
ents want the Department to make under the HEA.  There is no prec-
edent for tolerating this sort of causal uncertainty.  Respondents can-
not show that the denial of HEA loan relief—their ostensible injury—
“fairly can be traced to” the Department’s decision to grant loan relief
in the Plan.  Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 
U. S. 26, 42–43.  There is little reason to think that the Department’s 
discretionary  decision  to  pursue  one  mechanism  of  loan  relief  under 
the HEROES Act has anything to do with its discretionary decision to 
pursue (or not pursue) action under the HEA.  “The line of causation 
between” the Department’s promulgation of the Plan and respondents’ 
lack of benefits under the HEA “is attenuated at best,” Allen v. Wright, 
468 U. S. 737, 757, and all too dependent on “ ‘conjecture,’ ” Summers 
v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U. S. 488, 496.  Pp. 10–13.

(2) Respondents’ attempts to tie the Plan to potential HEA relief 
are unavailing.  Although the Department has occasionally referred to 
“one-time” student-loan relief in publicizing the Plan, the Plan itself
contains no such reference.  And any incidental effect of the Plan on 
the  likelihood  that  the  Department  will  undertake  a  separate  loan-
forgiveness program under a different statute is too weak and specu-
lative to show that the absence of HEA-based loan forgiveness is fairly
traceable  to  the  Plan.  See, e.g.,  Simon,  426  U. S.,  at  42–43.    To  the 
extent the Department has determined that the Plan crowds out other 
efforts to forgive student loans, that determination is a discretionary
one that respondents may petition the Department to reconsider.  Fi-
nally,  respondents  cannot  demonstrate  causation  on  the  theory  that
the Department’s failure to observe the requisite procedural rules cost 
them a chance to obtain debt forgiveness; they do not want debt for-
giveness  under  the  HEROES  Act,  and  nothing  the  Department  has
done  deprives  them  of  a  chance  to  seek  debt  forgiveness  under  the 
HEA.  Respondents cannot meaningfully connect the absence of loan 
relief under the HEA to the adoption of the Plan, so they have failed to
show that their injury is fairly traceable to the Plan.  Pp. 13–14.