Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 60.0

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

13 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

549 U. S., at 548 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).  After today,
no one will have to go back 50 years for the classic case of
the  Court  manipulating  standing  doctrine,  rather  than 
obeying  the  edict  to  stay  in  its  lane.    The  majority  and  I 
differ, as I’ll soon address, on whether the Executive Branch 
exceeded its authority in issuing the loan cancellation plan.
But  assuming  the  Executive  Branch  did  so,  that  does  not 
license this Court to exceed its own role.  Courts must still 
“function as courts,” this one no less than others.  Ibid.  And 
in our system, that means refusing to decide cases that are
not really cases because the plaintiffs have not suffered con-
crete injuries.  The Court ignores that principle in allowing 
Missouri to piggy-back on the “legal rights and interests” of 
If 
an  independent  entity.    Warth,  422  U. S.,  at  499. 
MOHELA wanted to, it could have brought this suit.  It de-
clined to do so.  Under the non-manipulable, serious version
of standing law, that would have been the end of the mat-
ter—regardless how much Missouri, or this Court, objects 
to the Secretary’s plan. 

II 

The majority finds no firmer ground when it reaches the 
merits.  The statute Congress enacted gives the Secretary
broad authority to respond to national emergencies.  That 
authority kicks in only under exceptional conditions.  But 
when  it  kicks  in,  the  Secretary  can  take  exceptional 
measures.  He can “waive or modify any statutory or regu-
latory  provision”  applying  to  the  student-loan  program. 
§1098bb(a)(1).  And as part of that power, he can “appl[y]” 
new  “terms  and  conditions”  “in  lieu  of ”  the  former  ones. 
§1098bb(b)(2).  That means when an emergency strikes, the 
Secretary can alter, so as to cover more people, pre-existing
provisions enabling loan discharges.  Which is exactly what 
the Secretary did in establishing his loan forgiveness plan.
The majority’s contrary conclusion rests first on stilted tex-
tual analysis.  The majority picks the statute apart piece by