Episode description

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Department of Education v Brown.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do these two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education’s Student Loan Debt Relief Plan? In addition, is the Plan an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by the Secretary of the Department of Education?

The case was decided on June 30, 2023. 

The Supreme Court held that Respondents lack Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for a unanimous Court.

For a plaintiff to have standing, they must establish: (1) a concrete and particularized injury, (2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant's action, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Here, the “fairly traceable” element fails. The respondents' injury is not “fairly traceable” to the plan enacted under the HEROES Act, as they have not established a direct link between the HEROES Act plan and their desired outcome of a more favorable loan-forgiveness program under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). Any link is too tenuous and speculative to establish standing.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.