Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BROWN 
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–535.  Argued February 28, 2023—Decided June 30, 2023 

To alleviate hardship expected to be caused by the impending resump-
tion of federal student-loan repayments that had been suspended dur-
ing the multi-year coronavirus pandemic, Secretary of Education Mi-
guel Cardona announced a substantial student-loan debt-forgiveness 
plan (Plan).  The Plan discharges $10,000 to $20,000 of an eligible bor-
rower’s debt, depending on criteria such as the borrower’s income and 
the  type  of  loan  held.    The  Secretary  invoked  the  Higher  Education 
Relief  Opportunities  for  Students Act  of  2003  (HEROES  Act),  which 
authorizes the Secretary “to waive or modify any provision” applicable
to federal “student financial assistance” programs “as may be neces-
sary to ensure that . . . recipients of student financial assistance” are
no  worse  off  “financially  in  relation  to  that  financial  assistance  be-
cause” of a national emergency or disaster.  20 U. S. C. §§1098bb(a)(1), 
(a)(2)(A),  1098ee(2)(C)–(D).   The  HEROES  Act  also  exempts  rules 
promulgated pursuant to it from the otherwise-applicable negotiated-
rulemaking and notice-and-comment processes.

Before  the  Plan  took  effect,  various  plaintiffs—including  respond-
ents here—sued to enjoin it.  Respondents Myra Brown and Alexander 
Taylor are two borrowers who do not qualify for the maximum relief 
available under the Plan.  Their one-count complaint alleges that the
Secretary was required to follow notice-and-comment and negotiated-
rulemaking procedures in promulgating the Plan, which all agree he
did  not  do.  Brown  and  Taylor  argue  that  the  HEROES  Act’s  proce-
dural  exemptions  apply  only  when  the  rule  promulgated  is  substan-
tively authorized by the Act, and because the HEROES Act does not 
authorize the Plan (they argue), the Secretary was required to follow 
negotiated rulemaking and notice and comment.  The District Court